NEW DEAL FOR COMMUNITIES: NATIONAL EVALUATION MAIN PHASE ANNUAL EVALUATION REPORT 2003
NEW CROSS GATE NEW DEAL FOR COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP, LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
FINAL REPORT
Paul Convery, Lisa McCrindle
SQW LTD
February 2004
EVALUATION OF THE NEW DEAL FOR COMMUNITIES PROGRAMME
The evaluation of the New Deal for Communities programme is being undertaken by a consortium of organisations led by the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (CRESR) at Sheffield Hallam University.
The evaluation has three sets of objectives:
• To provide evidence relating to 'what works and why' in neighbourhood regeneration;
• To undertake value for money and cost effectiveness assessments of the NDC programme;
• To support the 39 Partnerships and the programme as a whole in achieving high standards of performance.
Key research task include:
• household surveys in all 39 areas in 2002 and 2004;
• identifying, collecting and assessing a range of secondary data, including results of the 2001 Census;
• analysing outcome indicators against expenditure to estimate net impacts within and across the programme and on specific groups of beneficiaries;
• carrying out local context analyses;
• an annual programme of interviews with partnership staff, board members and representatives of key stakeholders;
• five teams of specialists undertaking case study work focussing on progress in the five key policy areas: health, housing and the physical environment, education, worklessness, crime;
• longitudinal case study work in a small number of NDC areas;
• a programme of dissemination activities, designed to provide support and information for those involved in policy development and implementation.
The initial phase of the evaluation will run until 2005.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The evaluation team would like to thank all of those who gave their time to contribute to, facilitate and inform the evaluation process. In particular we would like to thank those people who agreed to take part in interviews as part of our research:
• Joan Ruddock – Interim Board Chair • Gill Haynes – Incoming Board Chair • Debbie Ellison – School Community Development Worker and former resident Board member • Lil Virgo – Elected resident board member • Supt. Archie Torrance – Board member, police representative • Christine Speed – Board member, voluntary sector representative • Des Malone – Board member, LSP representative • Austen Reid – Board member, housing association representative • Lyn Hayward – Head Teacher at Kender Primary School and member of education theme group • Carol Cooke – Government Office for London • Clive Jacotine – Neighbourhood Renewal Advisor • Jane Miller – PCT Development Manager • Pat Hayes – Executive Director for Regeneration London Borough of Lewisham • Gail Moore – Learning Skills Council – Lewisham area • Emmanuel Kormi – Resident board member • Phillipa Cartwright - Neighbourhood Warden • Reyna Scott-Mosley – Neighbourhood Warden • Louise Richard – Project Manager Lifestyle Opportunities for Older People (LOOP) • Bob Quatresols – Service Group Manager Highways, Street Lighting & Structures, London Borough of Lewisham. • Clive Wilson – Chief Executive New Cross Gate NDC • Bayo Kelekun - Programme Manager New Cross Gate NDC • Elisabeth Oloo – Project Manager New Cross Gate NDC • Alison Licorish – Community Development Outreach Worker New Cross Gate NDC • Precious Jeffers – Community Development Outreach Worker New Cross Gate NDC
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003
CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary...... i
Section 1 Introduction ...... 1
Section 2 The Partnership’s Year ...... 2
Section 3 Key Achievements ...... 5
Section 4 The Community: cohesion, equalities and engagement...... 10
Section 5 Partnership Structures: processes and delivery ...... 14
Section 6 Stakeholders and Agencies: partnership working and mainstreaming ...... 18
Section 7 Development, Learning and Forward Planning ...... 21
Section 8 Conclusions and Key Points ...... 23
Annexe 1 Templates ...... 30
Annexe 2 Household Survey and Administrative Data ...... 63
Annexe 3 Focus Group Reports ...... 87
Annexe 4 VFM Case Study...... 92
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
NDC National Evaluation Annual Evaluation Report for 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NDC Partnership New Cross Gate Round 2 Local Authority LB Lewisham CPA assessment rated “Good” 2002 and 2003 Author Paul Convery & Lisa McCrindle Date February 2003
New Cross Gate NDC has come through a challenging year of consolidation and recovery. As a result of undergoing a period of major transition, the Partnership’s collective sense of direction and optimism has grown. It has weathered a very rough patch and emerged stronger. It has responded to the realisation that previous years’ delivery plans were both over-ambitious and dominated by capital projects that could not be delivered in the planned timescale. The Partnership has implemented a number of changes to strengthen its appraisal, monitoring and financial control systems. It has substantially changed its personnel and now has a well managed and skilled staff team, with a good Board and a supportive local authority.
Towards the beginning of the year the Board moved quickly ensure the Partnership could recover from the difficulties experienced in its first 2 years. It took four key decisions that have:
fully re-evaluated the flagship capital projects
accelerated projects to quickly and clearly meet some of the programme’s theme priorities.
established a full staff team led by a permanently appointed Chief Executive
re-located its offices into good quality premises in the centre of the NDC area.
The programme has now been re-organised into 5 themes, and with cross-theme linkages having been identified, the programme has begun to acquire considerably more coherence. Some capital work has been undertaken to start addressing major environmental problems in the area but, during Year 3, the majority of the NDC’s activity has concentrated on revenue expenditure to meet immediate shortcomings in mainstream public services. The Partnership can take some satisfaction from successful developments that include:
A programme of good projects rolled out – particularly the Neighbourhood Wardens, Street Lighting programme, school and youth based events and activities – particularly Community Schools Pupil Support, truancy and advocacy services – environmental improvements, sports and recreational projects designed for youth and for older people.
Recruitment of a permanently established staff team of considerable experience and calibre
Re-establishment of the 5 theme groups to steer the main programme themes – supported by a cross-theme co-ordination function
Launch of a Community Chest fund to support smaller organisations – particularly under-resourced groups aiming to develop more substantive project proposals
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003 Page i New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
More effective working by the Board which has weathered difficult circumstances and has successfully seen the transition from an interim chair to a newly recruited chair
Implementation of management and weakness identified by the Accountable Body
A very successful Summer event that gave the NDC very high visibility
The Partnership’s achievements – organised by theme – are as follows: Raising educational standards Key Issues The NDC has a higher than average proportion of young people but a marked lack of youth facilities and is an area with schools that have variable achievement rates. Adult skill rates are lower than average and the area has a large population whose first language is not English. Outputs The Community Schools Pupil Support project –placing teaching assistants and Community Development Workers in primary schools working with teachers and engaging parental support – has been underway for 18 months and is very popular with the schools and with parents. New services have been started – focussed on truancy and youth advocacy aimed at secondary school pupils, particularly Deptford Green. Mainstreaming The NDC is primarily funding supplementary services in the area’s schools. It has recognised that it has yet to establish a close collaboration with the post-16 educational institutions in the area or with the LSC and LEA that will concentrate additional mainstream services into the area. Intermediate Key stage 1 and 2 results have improved in primary schools although NDC outcomes funded activity will have played only one attributable part in their success.
Improving health Key Issues Poor health conditions have been repeatedly identified during the NDC’s lifetime and in the most recent Health Impact Assessment. There is a serious shortage of GP, pharmacy, dental and optician services. Outputs ¾ Lifestyle Opportunities for Older People – personal safety help and a range of sports and leisure classes and activities. ¾ Complementary Health – providing classes and clinics in Osteopathy, reflexology and yoga; self defence classes ¾ Sports activities including an accredited football training programme and other after-school and holiday sports ¾ Lion project – sports activities primarily for disabled children – sponsored by Millwall FC ¾ Sexual health project developed and delivering referrals and advice Mainstreaming Health Impact Assessment produced with the Primary Care Trust and Health Action Zone. Future joint commissioning of services between the NDC and PCT is likely. The PCT has identified New Cross Gate as an area requiring more intensive primary care services. Intermediate None identified outcomes
Housing & the environment Key Issues Low satisfaction amongst residents in the area, poor provision of open space, effects of vandalism, anti-social behaviour and by graffiti. There is an acute shortage of suitable housing and the area has major problems caused by transport congestion and pollution. Outputs ¾ Environmental Infrastructre and Area Lighting programme has been completed ¾ Eckington Gardens park redevelopment started in early 2003 and has now been finished ¾ Street décor – hanging baskets and troughs at locations around the NDC area – undertaken in the Summer with an ambition to install all-year round planting ¾ Winslade recreational area improvements completed ¾ Besson Street Garden revitalised
Mainstreaming The Borough and Hyde Housing are the main suppliers of affordable
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003 Page ii New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
housing. The Borough has contributed to revenue and maintenance costs of new street lighting and highways improvement. Local PSA agreement to reduce abandoned vehicles on streets and estates in the NDC area. Intermediate “Hard” environmental improvements completed. Better environment from outcomes less fly-tipping, abandoned vehicles – however, no quantifiable evidence yet. Transport feasibility study fully funded by TfL and the Borough has funded consultation on traffic calming measures.
Community Safety Key Issues Overall crime levels in New Cross Gate are reported to have declined but remain high even by London standards. A majority of residents feel unsafe and a third have experienced some form of crime Outputs The Neighbourhood Wardens deterring crime and reducing fear of crime. Better street lighting has improved perceptions of security. Youth strategy reducing young people’s vulnerability to crime and increased diversionary activities to reduce crime and anti social behaviour by young people. Mainstreaming Neighbourhood Wardens part-funded by the Borough and managed through the Borough Wardens Service. MPS has re-organised beat patrolling patterns. Intermediate Some reduction in reported crime. outcomes
Jobs and training Key Issues Low household income levels and low employment and economic activity rates. Many local residents failing to benefit from widespread regeneration and jobs growth in central London, elsewhere in Lewisham and Thames Gateway. Outputs ¾ Childcare training project to support and train a network of existing and new childminders ¾ Opportunity Community – a project that has been substantially reviewed by the programme team. Although achieving a number of outputs – people advised, business starts, people into work – it lacked a high street presence and suffered from a lack of engagement with Jobcentre Plus. Matched with Equal funding, the project has also helped develop 4 social enterprises. ¾ Community Schools Pupil Support programme recruited 19 teaching assistants and 3 community workers from the locality Mainstreaming Very limited engagement with Jobcentre Plus, the Connexions service, Learning & Skills Council or with Business Link for London. Intermediate Unemployment has declined in the area outcomes The Partnership has also begun to develop a robust and forward-looking Year 4 Delivery Plan. It is intending to fundamentally re-examine the programme to ensure it has a more coherent, planned programme that will effectively address the NDC’s original objectives and assumptions. In the near-term, the Partnership has already begun to implement a range of new projects. These include:
CCTV coverage for the area
Improvements to the parade of shops on the Somerville Estate
Business mentoring scheme for secondary school pupils
A master-planning exercise for the whole NDC area
A comprehensive youth strategy devised to meet education, community safety and health theme objectives
An economic development project to revitalise the “high street” with town centre management services.
Support to advice and guidance services delivered by the voluntary sector
A small team of staff dedicated to community development work
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003 Page iii New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Evidence from the Census and other sources indicates that many of the original baseline indicators were generally correct – although some of the baseline data is inconsistent and in a few cases incorrect. Much of it has been superseded by evidence from the 2001 Census which shows that, in some cases, trends and conditions have become more marked.
Population transcience has become more evident and the population has become ethnically more diverse. Educational performance is improving but the area still lags behind the Lewisham, London and England averages. Standards of health remain relatively poor, environmental degradation and crime has worsened, transport congestion has become more acute whilst the level of economic inactivity and non-employment remains far higher than the Borough, London and national averages.
The Partnership’s Board remains one of its key assets. Its members have retained their enthusiasm and support, and the Board has acquired a greater sense of purpose and stability. It has consolidated its governance by agreeing to new terms of reference that define its aims, function and roles and clarify the eligibility and appointment procedures for its members. It has replaced members arising from vacancies and effectively managed the transition to a new independent chair. However, representatives of residents along with members drawn from local organisations are now keen to show results. It will be important to ensure that elections in 2004 maintain the interest of local people.
Despite the presence of representatives from most major service providers on the Board, in the recent past, a number of relationships have not been fully exploited – particularly the relationship with Hyde Housing. The arrival of a new Board member from Hyde is a very encouraging indication of the priority given to New Cross Gate by Hyde’s senior management. Although one member of the Board is drawn from the local business community, it has proved difficult to engage employers and business owners.
As the Board moves towards more coherent long term planning, a greater degree of cohesion will be required – along with a keener sense of direction and purpose. This has already been helped by the re-establishment of theme groups, away days and by changes to the format of Board meetings. However, there remains some lack of clarity about the precise role of Board members and the Board has continued to be distracted by relatively small- scale operational concerns. Training has been made available to Board members – although this has not specifically concentrated on discharge of their non-executive roles. To retain the continued involvement of senior individuals on the Board, it is essential that all Board members become far clearer about their roles and responsibilities.
Engagement of local people remains a difficulty for the Partnership. With the re- establishment of theme groups, involvement has improved although a significant part of the input to theme groups has come from individuals employed by public service providers in the area. Over the last year, resident involvement in project development has therefore increased a little although the total number of individuals is relatively small.
The Partnership starts from a low base of awareness with only a half of the population having heard of the NDC. The Partnership has therefore partly approached the problem of engagement by increasing the amount of marketing activity.
BME involvement is becoming a more important priority for the Partnership, which is committed to the highest standards of BME engagement and service delivery. It has embarked with urgency on a thorough action planning exercise to ensure that it has a relevant and workable BME strategy in place. In particular, the Partnership has moved to improve its communication methods to ensure wider circulation of information – particularly in minority languages – and outreach towards smaller but distinctive groups, especially more recent arrivals in the UK
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003 Page iv New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
There have been considerable efforts to improve the NDC’s relationship with partner agencies. Public service agencies continue to be enthusiastic about their engagement with the NDC and the potential for mainstreaming services. Previously held doubts about the NDC’s ability to deliver seem to have diminished as confidence and credibility has been re- established. The NDC’s most productive relationships are with the local schools, the Borough, Lewisham College, the Primary Care Trust and the Metropolitan Police Service. There are now examples of good complementary service delivery and some evidence of the NDC influencing or skewing mainstream spending. However, the majority of agencies have not done much to operationalise their stronger commitment to the NDC – either by changing their structures or working methods. Few have made any significant adjustment to the level of mainstream funding into the area or made any changes to their service priorities or methods of delivery. One area of significant weakness remains the involvement of mainstream public agencies in the economic development domain. The NDC’s business development, employment support, learning and skills have continued to suffer from a lack of engagement with Jobcentre Plus, the Connexions Service, Learning & Skills Council or Business Link for London. The Board and delivery team have acknowledged this weakness – as indeed have the mainstream agencies themselves. The Partnership still does not have a strong understanding of the economic dynamics of the area, its relationship to the Central London, south riverside and Thames Gateway economies or to the needs of a rapidly changing labour market. In part, the failure to engage with the local economy, reflects the absence of a coherent strategy underpinning the programme. Until recently, this has mainly comprised a collection of projects and services that can be said to approximately meet a number of identified needs. There had been little serious debate about priorities or the strategy behind the range of services developed. The Partnership’s planning for year 4 has now begun to position different projects and services in the correct logic chain: understanding baseline conditions; identifying requirements; project appraisal, service delivery; and monitoring and evaluating impact on the underlying conditions. Projects are placed within themes and cross-theme relevances are identified so that projects contribute towards inter-related outcomes. Although considerable effort is still being spent in micro-managing many projects, the Partnership has begun to re-balance its priorities in order to concentrate more on achieving outcomes from the overall programme. Although, newly developed projects are becoming more consistent with the NDC’s overall objectives, a number of services are still reactive to immediate demands. During the current year, a substantial number of new projects have come forward and been developed for appraisal. There remain strong community pressures to deliver a plethora of small-scale project-based services in a context of over-high expectations. However, the Board has begun to take a fundamental look at its Programme outcomes and the ultimate direction the NDC is likely to take during its remaining years. As the NDC matures and its individual projects are beginning to deliver outputs, the Partnership will need to introduce a good monitoring and evaluation framework. It needs a more comprehensive and reliable baseline with a manageable number of indicators – that can be updated fairly regularly – and which directly relate to the outputs and intermediate outcomes of the programme. New Cross Gate faces a unique set of inner urban challenges relating to its poor environment, chronic health problems, remarkable diversity, population transience and the struggle to integrate and educate a rising young population. Unlike many other difficult neighbourhoods, New Cross Gate combines stark social need and underachievement with considerable opportunities that are presented by its proximity to economic growth. It has the potential to overcome its challenges and align itself with the extraordinary potential that is made available by lying within easy reach of some of the most rapid jobs growth and flourishing urban regeneration anywhere in Europe. The challenge for the NDC is to ensure that the people of the neighbourhood share in this growing prosperity.
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003 Page v New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings of evaluation relating to New Cross Gate NDC Partnership for the year 2003. It is one of a range of outputs arising from the second year of the national evaluation of the New Deal for Communities programme. The report is based on a number of sources of evidence:
• interviews with a range of stakeholders within and out with the NDC Partnership, including staff, board members, residents and representatives of key partner agencies • interviews with representatives from Government Offices and other regional stakeholders • observation of mid-year review and other meetings • documentary analysis of delivery plans and other relevant material • a survey of 500 households within the NDC area, carried out by MORI/NOP between July and November 2002 • a range of administrative and secondary data
A similar report has been produced for each of the other 38 NDC Partnerships. The national evaluation web site is regularly updated and can be found at: http://ndcevaluation.adc.shu.ac.uk/ndcevaluation/Home.asp. Case studies and good practice guides can be found at: www.renewal.net
The remainder of this report is structured as follows: 2. The Partnership's year 3. Key achievements 4. The community: cohesion, equalities and engagement 5. Partnership structures, processes and delivery 6. Stakeholders and agencies: partnership working and mainstreaming 7. Development, learning and forward planning 8. Conclusions and Key Points
Annexe 1: Templates
Annexe 2: Household survey and administrative data
Annexe 3: Focus Group Reports
Annexe 4: VFM Case Study
The views represented in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit or those of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
New Deal for Communities 1 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
SECTION 2 THE PARTNERSHIP’S YEAR
The year to November 2003 has been a period of consolidation and recovery. The Partnership’s experience has been influenced by the major events that occurred in the middle of 2002 – and these were reviewed in last year’s report.
The Partnership having identified that its year 2 and 3 programme was over-ambitious and dominated by capital projects that could not be delivered in the planned timescale, significantly re- profiled its programme. In Summer 2002, the Accountable Body (LB Lewisham) undertook an audit enquiry which reported many critical areas of weakness in the Partnership’s appraisal, monitoring and financial control systems. At about the same time, the Partnership also saw the departure of its second Chief Executive and the staff team was subsequently re-organised with two staff assuming a temporary management role.
This background of uncertainty did not help the Partnership to move forward. Nonetheless, the Board successfully addressed a number of pressing challenges.
Firstly, it recognised that its staff resources suffered from a poor work culture and low morale that were exacerbated by poor working conditions. The board moved to establish a full staff team led by a permanently appointed Chief Executive – and successfully recruited Clive Wilson who started work in April 2003. The new staff team has led to a profound change in the NDC’s culture and its working relationships with external organisations.
Secondly, the Board decided to fully re-evaluate its flagship capital projects – to ensure that they met identified need and could be feasibly deployed. This meant that the Year 3 delivery plan became a predominantly revenue programme and a great deal smaller than originally planned.
Thirdly the Board decided to accelerate revenue projects that would prove to be “quick wins” and which would clearly meet some of the programme’s theme priorities. This meant that a number of high visibility environmental schemes were fast-tracked and delivered mainly in conjunction with the Borough.
Lastly, the Board decided to move its staff team into good quality, business-standard premises that are located physically in the centre of the NDC area.
This report presents an assessment of the Partnership’s progress – particularly since the period of uncertainty that ended with the incoming Chief Executive’s arrival. A number of excellent projects continued to be delivered during the year, the programme was extensively reviewed and the Partnership’s structure and staffing fundamentally restructured.
The programme has been re-organised into 5 themes that match the principal Neighbourhood Renewal domains plus a Community Engagement theme. With cross-theme linkages having been identified, the programme has begun to acquire considerably more coherence although it still lacks some important elements. Some capital work has been undertaken to start addressing major environmental problems in the area but, during Year 3, the majority of the NDC’s activity has concentrated on revenue expenditure to meet immediate shortcomings in mainstream public services. This will undoubtedly change over the coming period and the Year 4 delivery plan is expected to be significantly different to the previous programme.
Whilst the process of recovery has been tangible, it is still too early to record a significant number of quantifiable programme outputs. This report therefore recognises a wide range of service developments and a greater sense of community engagement that are still too early to fully
New Deal for Communities 2 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership evaluate and can only be judged in the final report of this three year evaluation (at the end of 2004).
Amongst the most promising developments that can be recorded are:
High profile projects rolled out – particularly the Neighbourhood Wardens, Street Lighting programme and the Community Schools Pupil Support project
Recruitment of a permanently established staff team of considerable experience and calibre
Re-establishment of the 5 theme groups to steer the main programme themes – supported by a cross-theme co-ordination function
Launch of a Community Chest fund to support smaller organisations – particularly under- resourced groups aiming to develop more substantive project proposals
Strong support from a Board which has functioned well under difficult circumstances and has successfully seen the transition from an interim chair to a newly recruited chair
Implementation of all system weakness recommendations contained in the LB Lewisham Audit Report
An exceptionally well attended and thoroughly successful Summer event that gave the NDC very high visibility
These services have been delivered alongside the development of a considerable portfolio of new projects. These include:
CCTV coverage for the area – although for technical reasons, this project has been deferred into Year 4
Improvements to the parade of shops on the Somerville Estate
Business mentoring scheme for secondary school pupils
A master-planning exercise for the whole NDC area
A comprehensive youth strategy devised to meet education, community safety and health theme objectives
Economic development project to revitalise the “high street” with town centre management services.
Support to advice and guidance services delivered by the voluntary sector
A small team of staff dedicated to community development work More significantly, the Partnership has identified the tasks that are required to produce a robust and forward-looking Year 4 Delivery Plan. It is intending to fundamentally re-examine the programme in the context of the NDC’s original objectives and assumptions. The Board is likely to review all its projects to ensure it has a more coherent, planned programme that address the issues identified in the baseline data and produces outcomes that meet the overall objectives. The Partnership now has the main components in place to capitalise on the services and projects launched during years 2 and 3 whilst having the confidence that its Board, staff team and management infrastructure are capable of planning and delivering a robust and ambitious programme in year 4 and beyond.
As a good further reflection of the Partnership’s more outward-looking and positive approach, it is worth recording that the level of information and access provided this year to the evaluators was very considerably improved. The management and staff team have been open, candid and helpful at all times and this contrasts with experience in previous years. The new management team have
New Deal for Communities 3 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership embraced the National Evaluation and incorporated this and previous year’s evaluation – alongside the Partnership’s self evaluation and the mid year review exercise – as part of the suite of evidence that can help the NDC refine its strategy and improve its performance. The change in attitude is further evidence to the tangibly improved circumstances of the Partnership and its renewed sense of optimism.
New Deal for Communities 4 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
SECTION 3 KEY ACHIEVEMENTS
In the past twelve months, the NDC Partnership has achieved a small number of identifiable outputs and made progress towards some early outcomes. The Partnership has consolidated some existing activities and developed a suite of new projects and services. The most successful of these are:
The area street lighting programme Environmental improvements, particularly to open space at Eckington Gardens Neighbourhood Wardens launched School and youth based events and activities – particularly Community Schools Pupil Support, truancy and advocacy services Sports and recreational projects designed for youth and for older people
Theme Raising educational standards Key Issues The NDC has a higher than average proportion of young people but a marked lack of youth facilities and is an area with schools that have variable achievement rates. One primary school in the area (Kender) has very good results that exceed the LEA and national averages – and it has achieved and retained Beacon status. The other 2 primary schools, however, are below national average at Key Stage 1 and 2. In previous years, Edmund Waller School has performed slightly better than the Borough and national averages but slipped a little in 2003. Monson School remains well below the LEA average at Key Stage 2, although it has shown significant recent improvement and – having been in Special Measures – has received a positive recent Ofsted inspection report. Three main secondary schools serve the area – Deptford Green, Addey and Stanhope (Voluntary Aided) and Haberdasher Aske’s. The latter is a very popular City Technology College and its excellent results at Key Stage 3, GCSE and A levels make it Lewisham’s best performing comprehensive school. The majority of pupils in the NDC area attend Deptford Green school which achieves Key Stage 3 results that are only a little lower than the Borough average. Measuring achievement of 5 GCSEs (graded A*-C), the school showed rapid improvement between 1999 and 2001 but has slipped back in 2003 to 34% compared with the Lewisham average of 39% and the national benchmark of 53%. Achievement rates at Addey and Stanhope have been broadly similar over the last 4 years, with 35% of pupils gaining 5 GCSEs (graded A*-C). Truancy and exclusion levels in the secondary schools are judged to be worse than average. The NDC has set an outcome target for its 6th operational year to have improved KS2 results by 5 percentage points, KS3 results by 6 percentage points, and the GCSE pass rate to have risen by 10 percentage points. Adult skill rates in the NDC are low. With over a quarter (28%) of the population having no qualifications, the NDC is a little worse than the London and Lewisham average (both 24%) but is markedly better than the average for other NDCs which average 42%. The MORI household survey shows that respectively 15% and 25% acknowledge the need to improve their literacy and numeracy skills and this is worse than the national average. However, there is some uncertainty expressed within the Partnership as to the robustness of much of the baseline data being used – particularly to gauge the need for adult learning improvement. An NDC theme group has recently been established to help develop work to improve educational achievement. However, no long term strategy is in place yet and whilst support for primary schools is well underway, potential secondary school interventions have not yet been identified. Clearer links are required with the jobs and training theme – which has developed few services that improve employability through learning and skills.
New Deal for Communities 5 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Outputs The Community Schools Pupil Support project – placing teaching assistants and Community Development Workers in primary schools working with teachers and engaging parental support – has been underway for 18 months and is very popular with the schools and with parents. New services have been started – focussed on truancy and youth advocacy aimed at secondary school pupils, particularly Deptford Green.
Mainstreaming The NDC is primarily funding supplementary services in the area’s schools. It has recognised that it has yet to establish a close collaboration with the post-16 educational institutions in the area or with the LSC and LEA that will concentrate additional mainstream services into the area.
Intermediate Key stage 1 and 2 results have improved in primary schools although NDC funded outcomes activity will have played only one attributable part in their success. Theme Improving health Key Issues Poor health conditions have been repeatedly identified during the NDC’s lifetime and the most recent evidence – the Health Impact Assessment – demonstrates a rounded understanding of all the economic, environment, social, lifestyle and biological factors leading to poor health outcomes for many residents. Poor health experiences are related to a number of conditions: ¾ lifestyle and sexual health related risks ¾ problems with social isolation amongst older people ¾ prevalence of poor mental health conditions ¾ unbalanced diet, alcohol and addictive drug use There is a serious shortage of GP services – with one practice (Queens Road) alone having 60% of the area’s population registered. The area has only one pharmacy, 2 dental practices and has no opticians. Other specific service weaknesses in the area include: ¾ a limited number of sport and healthy lifestyle activities ¾ a lack of childcare facilities ¾ unhygienic street environment and poor provision of open space The Health Impact Assessment steering group has been developed into the core of a re-launched Health theme group established to guide the programme.
Outputs A number of projects have been undertaken to improve health outcomes including: ¾ Lifestyle Opportunities for Older People – safety help specifically for residents at White House; and a range of sports and leisure classes and activities. ¾ Complementary Health offered in the Community for Everyone project – providing classes and clinics in Osteopathy, reflexology and yoga; self defence classes ¾ Sports activities including an accredited football training programme and other after-school and holiday sports ¾ Lion project – sports activities primarily for disabled children – sponsored by Millwall FC ¾ Sexual health project developed and delivering referrals and advice Mainstreaming Health Impact Assessment produced with the Primary Care Trust and Health Action Zone. Future joint commissioning of services between the NDC and PCT is likely. The PCT has identified New Cross Gate as an area requiring more intensive primary care services.
Intermediate None identified outcomes Theme Housing & the environment Key Issues Resident surveys – including the MORI data – indicate that a third of the population
New Deal for Communities 6 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
is dissatisfied with the area and with the provision of open space and green areas. About a quarter of the population is affected by vandalism, anti-social behaviour and by graffiti. Availability of suitable housing is a major problem, with the MORI survey indicating 45% of the population wanting to move from their property. This population group is younger in age – with three quarters of all aged 65+ not wanting to move. The area has major problems caused by transport congestion. The area’s roads carry heavy traffic across South London, cause accidents and generate noise and pollution. Nearly 40,000 vehicles move through New Cross Gate each day (an average of 30 vehicles every minute) and 40% of the population say they are affected by traffic related problems. Traffic calming measures on residential streets have had some ameliorative impact, but the main roads remain a fundamental problem affecting the overall environment for residents. Air pollution caused by traffic is worsened by proximity to the South East London waste transfer station and incinerator that increases heavy lorry movements and discharges atmospheric effluent.
Outputs A number of visibly distinctive projects were approved towards the beginning of the year. These included: ¾ The Environmental Infrastructure and Area Lighting programme has been completed ¾ Eckington Gardens park redevelopment started in early 2003 and has now been finished ¾ Winslade recreational area improvements completed ¾ Besson Street Garden revitalised Mainstreaming The NDC has no direct programme responsibility for housing, so relationships with the Borough and with the main RSL are critical to improving the quality and range of housing on offer. A senior member of Hyde Housing management is on the Board and there is a good partnership established with Lewisham Housing. Hyde housing is prepared to develop a new community centre. The NDC met the capital costs of Area Lighting but maintenance costs carried by the Borough. Traffic improvements are required and although traffic feasibility analyses have been undertaken. The NDC has an ambition to achieve a significant improvement and this will require a substantial commitment from Transport for London (in the short term) to revise bus routes and schedules and (in the longer term) to ameliorate the A2 trunking or the extension of the East London rail line. Transport feasibility study has been fully funded by TfL without any contribution required from the NDC. The Borough has also agreed to fund consultation on traffic calming measures in the area. The Borough has a local PSA agreement to reduce by 300 the number of untaxed and abandoned vehicles on streets and estates in the NDC area.
Intermediate “Hard” environmental improvements completed. Better environment from less fly- outcomes tipping, abandoned vehicles – however, no quantifiable evidence yet. Theme Community Safety Key Issues Overall crime levels in New Cross Gate are reported to have declined but remain high even by London standards. In the past year, crimes against the person have risen slightly and a high proportion of more vulnerable people have experienced crime. Four in ten residents feel unsafe in the neighbourhood and a majority of the population does not feel safe walking alone after dark. Over a third of residents have experienced some form of crime and only half the population is satisfied with the service provided by the police. There had been historically quite limited engagement by the Board and few anti- crime projects developed; subsequent appointment of MPS Deputy Borough Commander to new Board has changed perception and help expedite projects and
New Deal for Communities 7 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
services. The NDC has recognised slow progress in addressing community safety concerns. GoL has offered advice and an NRA is due to be engaged to help the partnership.
Outputs The Neighbourhood Wardens project was approved in March 2003 and will run for 3 years. Although there is only a limited evidence base for the programme, the wardens are primarily intended to foster good community relations, deter crime and reduce fear of crime by having a visible presence and by coordinating activity with MPS police patrolling. A project to recruit further Police Community Support Officers has progressed slowly and faces a number of management and funding problems. The Environmental Infrastructure and Area Lighting programme has improved perceptions of security with three quarters of surveyed residents attributing this to the better street lighting and an estate-specific lighting scheme. There have historically been weak linkages between NDC projects and community safety and contribution of other projects to preventing crime has been very limited. However, the youth strategy has begun to clearly identify ways to reduce young people’s vulnerability to crime. The partnership has increased the amount of diversionary activities that reduce crime and anti social behaviour by young people.
Mainstreaming A small part of the Neighbourhood Warden Project is funded through the Housing Revenue Account and is managed as part of the Borough Wardens Service within the LBL Housing Division. However, the current configuration does not really represent a service “bending” – the NDC funds the local component of a Borough- managed service. In addition, the MPS has re-organised its beat patrolling patterns across the whole Borough which has delivered some area-specific benefits to New Cross Gate. In the NDC area however, these beats have been specifically designed to match the NDC boundary. Area street lighting was successfully developed with the MPS and Borough. The NDC has collaborates well with MPS and enjoys particularly strong support from MPS divisional senior command. However, the NDC community safety theme has had limited connection to other agencies in the Crime Reduction Partnership.
Intermediate Some reduction in reported crime. outcomes Theme Jobs and training Key Issues Low household income levels predominate the NDC area whilst employment and economic activity rates are worse than the Borough average. One in six households receives a weekly income of less than £100 whilst the employment rate for the area is 57% compared with 66% for the Borough, 70% for London and 75% for England. Identified barriers to work remain significant – particularly access to childcare. The local area has a weak local economy – it supports very few workplaces, there are low rates of business start-up and nearly a fifth of business premises are vacant. New Cross Gate has good transport routes into Central London and close proximity to Canary Wharf. Widespread regeneration around Deptford has begun to generate new jobs and a wave of creative and cultural businesses have begun to locate and grow in the near vicinity. Residents in the New Cross Gate area have not engaged with this newer economy of business services, leisure and hospitality and there is a reluctance to travel even short distances to work. Public-funded employability services have not served the area particularly well either – with Jobcentre Plus being concentrated more in Deptford. In 2002, the Partnership undertook a skills and business audit and began to fund Opportunity Community, an employment and enterprise project. A lack of significant outputs from this project – and the absence of a theme group prompted the Partnership to review this work. It convened an employment and training conference in July 2003 ad has now re-established a theme group. A substantial
New Deal for Communities 8 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
number of new projects have been developed to provide training, youth activity and the Partnership has decided to learn from successful economic development experience elsewhere – including a Town Centre management scheme.
Outputs The Skills and Business audit failed to provide a usable baseline or to help develop project ideas. Despite the absence of a theme group, three main activities were supported including: ¾ Childcare training project to support and train a network of existing and new childminders ¾ Opportunity Community – a project that has been substantially reviewed by the programme team. Although achieving a number of outputs – people advised, business starts, people into work – it lacked a high street presence and suffered from a lack of engagement with Jobcentre Plus. Matched with Equal funding, the project has also helped develop 4 social enterprises. ¾ Community Schools Pupil Support programme recruited 19 teaching assistants and 3 community workers from the locality Mainstreaming During the year, the Partnership continued to struggle with effectively engaging Jobcentre Plus, the Learning & Skills Council or with Business Link for London.
Intermediate Unemployment has declined in the area at a rate broadly in line with the rest of the outcomes Borough and the London average – if not slightly faster. Evidence suggests that economic inactivity has remained relatively unchanged however.
New Deal for Communities 9 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
SECTION 4 THE COMMUNITY: COHESION, EQUALITY AND ENGAGEMENT
The area
The New Cross Gate NDC area is a compact, high density environment dissected by two high volume trunk roads. To the north of the area is the Winslade Estate, in the centre is the “Kender Triangle”, an area of mainly post-war housing whilst in the eastern part of the area, half a dozen streets of Victorian terraced housing form the Hatcham Park Conservation Area and much of this stock is in local authority ownership. On the south side of the NDC patch is further council housing – the Somerville Estate – which is more recently built and adjoins an area of more affluent, mainly privately owned Victorian-built housing (Telegraph Hill) that is outside the NDC area.
Within the NDC area, 48% of homes are rented from the local authority and a further 9% are rented from Housing Associations. Only 28% of homes are owner-occupied (the Lewisham average is 50%) with an additional 12% rented from private landlords.
The area does not have a very clear physical identity being “neither Deptford nor Camberwell” and more accurately defined as an area dominated by a triangle of dense road traffic – rather than a community clustered around a High Street like many other places – of which Deptford stands as a nearby comparator. As a result, the area has a feeling of transcience despite having population groups that are very long-term residents.
As a distinctive place, New Cross Gate is primarily defined in relation to its position as a major transport hub. The Kender triangle is a gyratory junction for the A2 into Central London and the A202 which forms the main East West route across inner south London. The New Cross Gate railway bridge is a pinch-point on the A2 as well as being a busy rail and tube station that will, in due course, form part of the extended East London line into the City and to North London.
So, whilst the neighbourhood is extremely well served by transport, it is also blighted by the feeling of marginality – of being a place people travel through to get somewhere else. It is repeatedly said that a reduction in traffic volumes would be the one single biggest improvement to the environment and living conditions of much of the NDC area’s population. Whilst de-trunking of the A2 is unlikely in the short-term, traffic volumes in New Cross Gate have already been reduced by congestion charging in Central London and by the longer term change in driving patterns caused in the last 2 years by the partial closure of New Cross Gate bridge and re-routing at Blackheath. Influencing major changes to the transport infrastructure is not yet on the NDC’s agenda despite the evident advantages that would be made. There is some scope however, for smaller, more manageable adjustments to be influenced – such as improvements to the bus network, traffic calming and better pedestrian facilities.
The population
Just as the “place” is not particularly tangible, the community in New Cross Gate is not easily defined either. According to the 2001 Census, more than a third of the population is aged less than 24. This makes the NDC area slightly younger than Lewisham as a whole with 23% of the population aged less than 16 and 14% who are aged 16 to 24. There are 1,100 households that have dependent children living in them (almost a third) – a proportion that is higher than the Lewisham and London averages by one and two percentage points respectively.
The prime working age population (aged 25 to 44) represents a substantially higher proportion of the whole population (37%) than the average for England or the average for other NDC areas
New Deal for Communities 10 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership outside London. However, this proportion is close to the Lewisham and Greater London average – reflecting the unique population characteristic of the Capital rather than anything particular to the NDC area. Partly reflecting the proximity of Goldsmiths College, students represent a significant proportion of the whole population (14%) in comparison with the Lewisham average (11%) which is the same as the London average. At 13% the number of lone parent households in the NDC area is slightly above the Lewisham average (12%) but inevitably higher than the averages for London (9%) or England (7%).
With a disproportionately young population in the area, it is not surprising therefore that the number of pensioner households is well below the London average. In total, there are 470 pensioner households representing just 13% of all households – which is in quite marked contrast to the Lewisham and London averages of 16% and 18% respectively.
Census 2001 also shows that the non-white population comprised exactly half the population – having grown from just under a third according to the 1991 Census. Of the 8,300 population in the NDC area, 41% are White British, 9% are Irish or Other White. The largest non-white ethnic groups are Black British / Caribbean (16%) and Black British / African (17%). The South Asian population comprises just under 3% of the population. A third of the population was born outside the UK. Comparable figures for Lewisham show that 66% of the population is White with 12% and 9% being respectively Black British / Caribbean and Black British / African. The Census data corroborates the 2002 MORI Household survey which identified the White population as being 53% of respondents. According to the MORI survey a fifth of residents do not have English as their first language.
Local evidence indicates that the most recent incoming population groups include many different nationals from Southern and Eastern Europe and refugees mainly from Eritrea, Somalia and Afghanistan.
Residents’ involvement in the NDC
Engagement of local people remains a difficulty for the Partnership. New Cross Gate is a complex area undergoing change. It contains population groups that are both highly transient (new arrivals to the UK, students, young professional people) and long-term established residents (particularly an older generation of local authority tenants). The area has a long history of local activism some of which is reflected in the make-up of the Board and theme groups.
With the re-establishment of theme groups, involvement of local residents has considerably improved although a significant part of the input to theme groups has come from individuals employed by public service providers in the area. Over the last year, resident involvement in project development has therefore increased a little although the total number of involved individuals is relatively small.
The key task for the Partnership is to ensure a good division of role between local residents and public service professionals – ensuring that the former group articulates needs and develops ideas whilst the latter group offers service integration, appraisal and other technical skills to make residents’ ideas happen. Whilst an over-rigid distinction between these different roles is not desirable, at present, there is considerable blurring of roles and responsibilities.
The Partnership recognises that numerically large community involvement is probably an impossible ambition. It has placed some faith in the ability of elected resident members to assume a more representative function and whilst the next round of resident elections is unlikely to confer a dependable “mandate”, a greater weight of responsibility will be placed on these members to effectively articulate community needs and views.
New Deal for Communities 11 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
The Partnership starts from a low base of awareness. MORI survey found that only 50% had heard of the NDC (64% is the average for all other NDCs). The Partnership has therefore approached the problem of community engagement by increasing the amount of activity that would normally be described as marketing. An informative, large format newsletter has been produced containing headline information about the NDC and its projects. The Partnership also ran a very successful Summer Fair in August that attracted over a thousand people and outperformed all expectations. These types of activities will probably prove to be the far more effective forms of raising community “awareness” if not “engagement”.
BME community engagement
Because New Cross Gate has enjoyed harmonious community relations for more than a generation, there is no shared memory of conflict and there is a strong spirit of “getting along with each other” without any regard for race or ethnicity. In the absence of any difficult history of conflict or apparent discrimination, there is a real difference of opinion within the Partnership about the approach towards BME engagement. Membership of the Board is reasonably diverse although not yet proportionate to the population balance.
Some members of the Board believe that a state of reasonable equality already exists in the area – thereby negating the need to specifically engage non-white population groups. Although this has been a recurring theme within the Board, the Partnership has consciously worked to ensure that it has a good approach towards diversity and equality of opportunity.
In the late Summer, the Board considered a strategy report produced by external consultants. This fell below the required standard, being poorly evidenced and seeming to recommend off-the-shelf solutions that insufficiently addressed the circumstances of the area. It was consequently not very well received although many of the actions it suggested were broadly agreed with. There is no evidence that Partnership is not committed to the highest standards of BME engagement and service delivery. However, considerable symbolic capital had been invested in the report and its failure to decisively point the Partnership in a clear direction was a setback that seemed to signify a reduced level of commitment.
The Partnership has now embarked with urgency on a thorough action planning exercise to ensure that it has a relevant and workable BME strategy in place. The Partnership has appointed a staff member – who brings considerable experience of research and strategy – with a specific responsibility for equalities and the Board has agreed to develop the diversity and equality strategy in-house and this has led to a new BME action plan being formulated.
Race equality training is currently not supplied to staff.
Fair access
Our last evaluation report, identified BME engagement as a key concern for the Partnership and the Board and management has shown a determination to mark this out as a clear priority. Although the Partnership has not yet agreed a clear BME strategy it has firmly articulated vision in its delivery plan and the staff team fully understand and comply with this. The Board has accepted the outline of an external report and have developed an in-house resource to develop a BME strategy. Consistent with this approach, many aspects of the NDC’s work reflect a thorough-going commitment to ensure equality and fair access. The staff team engages in outreach and community engagement work, there are multi-lingual information services available and the Board and staff reflect a reasonably diverse mix. However, the Partnership needs to improve its performance in the following respects:
New Deal for Communities 12 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
¾ More imaginative communication methods to ensure wider circulation of information – particularly in minority languages – which has been identified in the new communication strategy ¾ Outreach and engagement with smaller but distinctive groups, particularly more recent arrivals in the UK ¾ More systematic engagement – across all 5 themes – instead of a number of relatively ad hoc efforts to reach more disadvantaged populations. A specific emphasis may also be needed to engage with other groups who are less well engaged – some older populations, people not in work, young people and disabled.
There are some very positive signs of community engagement. Ownership and management of some projects has begun to develop, such as the Somerville Adventure Playground and the Youth Strategy. The Community chest project has distributed small grants to many local organisations – especially to help develop potential projects up to an appraisal-ready standard and this is important because the NDC has a technically demanding appraisal process. One critical factor mitigating against community engagement however is that several of the Partnership’s flagship projects are actually delivered and managed by mainstream agencies – with limited scope for community involvement. Lastly, the Partnership’s monitoring systems are not sufficiently well developed to enable reliable information about the ethnicity and other attributes of beneficiaries. For some services, such as LOOP, monitoring has been effective in ensuring that the service is equitably targeted. However, for the NDC to demonstrate that it is effectively reaching disadvantaged groups, performance data will need to be systematically collected and information systems will need to be made more robust to show results both on a project and theme-wide basis.
New Deal for Communities 13 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
SECTION 5 THE NDC PARTNERSHIP: STRUCTURES, PROCESSES AND DELIVERY
The Board
Our previous report warned that the Partnership had to ensure that enthusiasm and support within its (then) new Board “is effectively used and not allowed to dissipate”. It is encouraging to report that, despite an extremely difficult year, the Board has maintained its interest – despite the departure of several members – and with the recruitment of replacements. The appointment of a new chair, Gill Haynes, is a very promising development that – along with the new Chief Executive’s appointment – marks the end of the Partnership’s period of recovery and underlines a growing sense of stability within the organisation.
As interim chair during a very difficult period of transition, Joan Ruddock was greatly respected and her considerable authority were critical factors in helping the Partnership to retain the support of GoL, the local authority and other public service agencies. The scale of the Partnership’s difficulties and her instrumental role in keeping the organisation intact and functioning are perhaps under-appreciated still. As local MP she remains an advocate for the NDC.
The combination of recovery tasks and having a chair whose tenure was short-term and time- limited had tended to restrict the Board from thinking more long-term about the programme and direction taken by the NDC. Appointment of a new chair marks a symbolic break and will certainly help the Board to focus on longer-term plans. In these new circumstances, the qualities needed from the Board’s new chair will be facilitation rather than determined leadership, and these skills are evident in Gill Haynes appointment.
A number of enthusiastic new members have been recruited to replace some departed resident members and the longer-established resident representatives are still thoroughly involved. Representatives of residents along with members drawn from local organisations are now keen to show results. It will be important to ensure that Board elections in 2004 maintain the interest of local people.
The Board also benefits from a wide range of representatives drawn from external partners that include major service provider or strategic organisation in North Lewisham. This strong group of public service professionals are well motivated and personally committed to the Board and to their organisation’s operational engagement with the NDC. Mostly recruited over a year ago, these members remain enthusiastic for their task and, as the individuals are generally drawn from senior positions, are able to command attention within their own organisations and to supply substantial management experience to the work of the Partnership.
Despite this however, in the recent past, a number of relationships have not been fully exploited – particularly the relationship with Hyde Housing. The arrival of a new Board member from Hyde is a very encouraging indication of the priority given to New Cross Gate by Hyde’s senior management. Although one member of the Board is drawn from the local business community, it has proved difficult to engage employers and business owners.
The Board has also consolidated its governance by agreeing to new terms of reference that define its aims, function and roles and clarify the eligibility and appointment procedures for its members.
As the Board moves towards more coherent long term planning, a greater degree of cohesion will be required – along with a keener sense of direction and purpose. This has already been helped by the re-establishment of theme groups, detailed dialogue at away days and by changes to the format of Board meetings. There are no major disagreements within the Board about the
New Deal for Communities 14 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Partnership’s ultimate goals, but there are some significant differences of view about the purpose of the programme – along with differences in understanding how the NDC should work alongside other public service providers. There are essentially three different perspectives – although these are not mutually exclusive:
an approach that wants to re-engineer the area’s public services into a neighbourhood management model members that want to maximise capital expenditure into the area – particularly the affordable housing stock and into community facilities a group that is interested in putting revenue support into local service organisations and building community capacity The Year 4 programme will broadly determine where the balance lies between these different approaches. However, even when this is finalised, it is likely that some of the businesses of the Board will continue to be distracted by many parochial or minor management matters. For example, progress in developing employment and business growth has been hindered by objections to initiatives that – through inevitable leakage – will not exclusively benefit the area. A majority of members clearly recognise that the Board has to minimise a pre-occupation with operational matters and pay far greater attention to strategy, oversight and with maintaining financial viability. The management team’s reform of the appraisal process has taken decisions about individual projects out of the main Board forum and helped concentrate on the purpose and linkages of projects rather than their precise details. There remains some lack of clarity about the precise role of Board members and the Board has continued to be distracted by relatively small-scale operational concerns. Training has been made available to Board members – although this has not specifically concentrated on discharge of their non-executive roles. To retain the continued involvement of senior individuals on the Board, it is essential that all Board members become far clearer about their roles and responsibilities. The minutes of each Board meeting held this year remain a testament to the continued tendency to debate – and re-debate – matters of little importance. Not all of this is the fault of those individuals however. Many of these minor distractions hold considerable symbolic significance and reflect tangible tensions within the micro-politics of the neighbourhood or stand as a proxy for other more important disagreements. For example, there has been a running disagreement about the use of external consultants – in particular the cost of hiring PR specialists. In general, this reflects a feeling of resentment that the Board and its staff are seen as “unable to figure out what to do” and having to recruit expensive specialists. In particular, the arguments about using a PR firm actually reflected a deeper frustration amongst residents about the image that was being presented of the NDC – a problem that has subsequently been ameliorated by adopting a broader communications strategy that Board members feel party to.
To achieve greater cohesion, the Board may also have to improve its level of collective understanding about the way other partnerships work, the role and nature of different public services and a better common understanding about terminology and concepts.
The Board will also need to overcome some residual tensions in relation to the local authority. Some members display an instinctive hostility to LB Lewisham and use the Board as an opportunity to antagonise relations with the Council and to criticise its general service standards. Others on the Board appreciate that the Partnership might not have survived the last 18 months without Lewisham’s support. More importantly, a majority understand that the Board’s aspirations to improve public services and to achieve major environmental and planning change in the area will require more, not less, engagement with the local authority.
Lastly, there has been a marked improvement in the relations between Board and staff team. This partly reflects the efforts made to ensure Board-wide buy-in to the Chief Executive’s appointment but also because the subsequent management and leadership of the staff team has instilled a new sense of purpose and enthusiasm to which the Board has responded warmly.
New Deal for Communities 15 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Theme groups
The terms of reference for all 5 theme groups have been agreed – setting out basic roles, functions and membership. Each theme group is now responsible for reviewing the contribution of different projects to the NDC’s principal objectives and identifying emerging needs and gaps in service delivery. Theme groups have been augmented by a number of working groups that are specific to sports development, the youth strategy, Besson Street Gardens and a local artists forum. The New Cross Gate Community Strategy Group has also been re-formed under the auspices of the 170 Project and the NDC team attends its meetings and has agreed to provide some administrative support.
Management and staffing
The appointment of a new Chief Executive and staff team has been successfully achieved in the period since March 2003. The first priorities were to motivate the staff team, overcome the legacy of low morale and to recruit internally to a staffing structure that would meet the Partnership’s needs. This involved firstly regularising the complex mix of employment terms and contractual arrangements followed by a training needs analysis and attendance of staff in project cycle management skills followed by the recruitment of 5 new senior managers. As of April 2003, the NDC employed 17 staff of whom only one was on a permanent contract with the remainder engaged as agency temps or on a combination of fixed-duration or consultancy contracts. The Partnership now has almost all of its 22 strong staff team in post with at least 16 on permanent contracts of employment. The process of regularising and recruitment also coincided with a planned move of the staff team from cramped inadequate offices on the edge of the NDC area to new purpose built accommodation in the centre of New Cross Gate.
Procedures and systems
The Accountable Body continues to expect very high standards of financial management. A good level of confidence now exists between the NDC management and the Borough and Lewisham has confidence in the capability of staff in place and consequently the Borough’s oversight will require a far lighter touch in the immediate future. Two key appointments have been a Finance Manager, originally on secondment from Lewisham, and a Head of Programme Delivery. Both posts have been filled by skilled individuals with considerable experience of managing complex programmes within a demanding framework of accountability.
Much of the period from December 2002 was devoted to the necessary tasks of improving systems and financial management. In some respects the Partnership initially over-reacted to the LB Lewisham’s 2002 Audit Report and spent considerable time and effort ensuring that systems were overhauled, possibly at the expense of project development and programme planning. On re-inspection by the audit team in October 2003, the Partnership was judged to be compliant in all respects. The major changes that have been implemented from the Audit Report include: ¾ Introduction of System K ¾ Financial awareness management training ¾ Authorisation of payments restricted to staff with relevant financial awareness ¾ Fuller reporting to the Board of progress on current projects and their spending ¾ Using standard documentation for all procurement and contracting decisions ¾ Accurate recording of decisions relating to procurement and project approval ¾ Complete audit trails for all projects Delegated authorisation was withdrawn immediately following the 2002 Audit Report and this has now been returned to the NDC management (within the limits required by the Accountable Body). Only two staff within the NDC team may approve invoices or sign orders. Numerous examples of
New Deal for Communities 16 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership bad financial management were uncovered by the Audit report which specifically required a major overhaul of the appraisal and approvals process. In particular, this concentrated on: ¾ removing detailed project appraisal from the main Board’s workload ¾ implementing controls that meet the standards set out by the Government Office ¾ disclosure of interests by Board members Management information, particularly the monitoring of outputs had been weak and – with a number of new staff in post and a review of systems undertaken – this has been considerably improved. The management team has revised and simplified the range of output codes and has introduced a standard report format to capture financial information, numerical outputs and to identify risks and control measures. Although the existing system was reasonably sound, 130 different output codes were being used and this resulted in poor understanding of their different relative importance.
Financial results
The NDC continues to underspend against its targets in most of the 5 main programme themes, but this is principally due to the Year 3 programme having had weaknesses. The Partnership has re-profiled its expenditure and anticipates spending £3¾m by the end of 2003-04 – which is just over 90% of budget forecast for the year. New activity has been designed and appraised during the annual spending cycle and this has inevitably spent at less than at a full-year pace.
Some slippage is also attributable to external factors. A plan to invest £200,000 in CCTV – linked to the Council’s current system – has been delayed by a technical review of the whole Lewisham CCTV infrastructure. Other planned expenditure has been slowed down by delays in 3rd party delivery organisations, notably the Primary Care Trust. Without remedial action, the Partnership was at risk of spending just 82% of forecast budget. Additional expenditure is being programme to increase environmental improvements and the revised expenditure assumptions include about £400,000 of capital earmarked for purchase of a landmark High Street building that will house the re-designed Employment and Enterprise project agency.
New Deal for Communities 17 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
SECTION 6 STAKEHOLDERS AND AGENCIES: PARTNERSHIP WORKING AND MAINSTREAMING
During its period of recovery, considerable effort has been made to re-build relationships with partner agencies. Public service agencies continue to be enthusiastic about their engagement with the NDC and the potential for mainstreaming services. This should be put in context however, that most agencies regard the NDC as an “exceptional” case for their neighbourhood renewal involvement. Although each agency expresses an over-riding commitment to working with the Lewisham Strategic Partnership, this does not preclude active support to the Partnership. Operationalising this general support to the Partnership has taken some time. Agencies are now more optimistic about collaboration with the Partnership now that there is more continuity and certainty from dealing with permanent staff team – in particular theme managers. However, the majority of agencies had not changed their structures or working methods very significantly. They had not increased the level of their mainstream funding to the area or made any changes their service priorities or methods of delivery. Education Deptford Green secondary school and the area’s primary schools are extensively involved with the NDC which is funding a wide range of supplementary services in the schools. These include community support workers, truancy and pupil advocacy services, educational trips and a driving skills project. The 3 primary schools in the area have formed a consortium to bid for external funding and other support (the “Triangle Schools”) that has been helped by the level of NDC supported activity in all three schools. The NDC has begun to develop links with Haberdasher Aske’s school – to help develop higher attainment in the area’s primary schools – whilst the Headteacher at Addey and Stanhope secondary school has expressed interest in supporting the NDC’s education work. Proposers of the new Crossways Academy – which will be developed on a former school site on the NDC’s boundary – have shown a great deal of enthusiasm for involvement with the NDC and its new principal has joined the education theme group. The LSC has not agreed an arrangement for funding of adult learning to be delivered from the site – as part of an all-hours community learning services package. The NDC may therefore want to develop a programme with the LEA to help provide adult education services from the site. Lewisham College is also becoming closely involved – particularly through a family learning service piloted during the year which aims to attract adults into learning, to improve basic skills and to help children with homework. The College is also collaborating with the NDC and Borough in a Tutor Development Project which aims to increase the numbers of basic skills tutors in the area. However, the NDC needs to engage more fully with the College and LEA, to develop the initial contacts made with the LSC and to build on activities with Sure Start and youth services. There is also a poor level of engagement with Goldsmiths College – which does not have a very strong attachment with its immediate area. Its curriculum strengths are in arts and humanities, so it lacks the business studies, science, technology or research base that many other HE institutions find as a natural conduit to their local economy. Nonetheless, its presence in the area should make it an important change agent – for example by developing more relationships with local secondary schools to encourage greater post-16 participation and progression into higher education. Health The NDC has established an excellent relationship with the Primary Care Trust – the chair is a member of the Board – and its Development Manager helped to manage the Health Impact
New Deal for Communities 18 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Assessment and is closely involved with the Theme Group and a number of projects. The area is chronically short of accessible health services and, with the PCT, the NDC has helped to develop plans to temporarily expand the range of provision offered by the local GP practice. The NDC’s original Delivery Plan included a Healthy Living Centre – as a key resource to supply a wide range of healthcare and leisure to meet the service gaps in the area. However, the planning for this facility lacked a realistic timescale and, although capital costs would be financed by the NDC, it did not have a sustainable revenue source identified. The Partnership has been helped by an experienced NRA and has moved to commission a definitive feasibility study and the PCT is positioned as a key partner to help configure this project. The NDC has prioritised a number of health services – particularly sexual health, mental illness and better nutrition – that are priority themes for the PCT. Crime Alongside major projects, such improved lighting and the Neighbourhood Wardens, the NDC has funded refurbishment of public gardens, anti graffiti, a community clean-up campaign and it is likely that an investment will be made in CCTV facilities. These have all made a major contribution to reducing levels of crime and anti-social behaviour and have all been developed in conjunction with the MPS. The Borough Commander has been a member of the NDC Board and has ensured very close collaboration between the NDC and the police service – both at a senior management level and with operational officers at Beat and Sector levels. The boundaries of police patrol beats has been re-aligned to match the NDC area and the neighbourhood wardens service is designed to closely match police operations – for example core hours of patrolling. The crime theme group has been re-established and has begun to develop a working relationship with the Borough’s Crime Prevention Unit and with youth service providers. One particularly significant development has been the launch of the NDC’s Youth Strategy and an effort to get a comprehensive range of services that engage young people in learning, provide diversionary activities and promote more socially responsible models of behaviour. Jobs and training Our previous report identified that this theme relied on a small number of self-contained projects that suffered from a lack of any connection with Jobcentre Plus, the Deptford Action Team for Jobs or with the Connexions service or post-16 services commissioned through the Learning and Skills Council. This still remains a key weakness in the Partnership’s planning – albeit one that is well recognised and articulated by the Board and management team. Equally, Jobcentre Plus and the LSC are aware of their own limited involvement, not least Jobcentre Plus which has specific annual funding £50,000 per relevant District to engage with NDCs and which – elsewhere in London – has established a good working relationship. Part of the problem lies in the Partnership having started its life with a very limited understanding of the economic dynamics of the area and. In 2002 it commissioned a Skills and Business Audit that failed to adequately relate New Cross Gate to the extensive physical developments underway in South East London and Thames Gateway or to position the Partnership’s work within a rapidly changing labour market. For example, within the lifetime of the NDC, the Convoys Wharf development, will become a new high-density mixed use urban quarter with a substantial range of employment in retail, leisure and cultural businesses. The location is barely a mile away and new transport links are likely to be routed through New Cross Gate enabling easy access. The NDC’s suite of employability services therefore needs to be focussed on preparing local people for the jobs that will be located at Convoys Wharf and similar employment that – in addition to Central London – is already growing along the southern side of the Thames and at Canary Wharf. The NDC has begun to develop some new projects and build new relationships with
New Deal for Communities 19 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership mainstream providers: an economic development programme to rejuvenate the High Street; a programme of employability support for young people from marginalised backgrounds; and a childcare training project. Housing and environment Eckington Gardens refurbishment and the area lighting programme have been successfully delivered with the Borough Council. Improvements to the housing stock in the area rely extensively on the Borough’s Housing Department and with Hyde Housing. The major redevelopment and refurbishment scheme at Kender is a good symbolic indication of things “happening in the area” although the NDC has had a relatively limited involvement. There are good environmental gains for the area arising from the scheme and Hyde Housing is supplying community facilities and employment and training opportunities. The NDC is therefore in the relatively privileged position of influencing the development activities of other agencies rather than trying to redevelop housing stock itself. This planning role includes other aspects of the area’s environment. The Partnership has an ambition to improve the traffic environment and bus services and this has led to initial discussions with Transport for London. However, major changes will require significant political support from the Borough through the LSP and from the Mayor and GLA. In this context. the NDC has taken the bold step of commissioning a masterplanning exercise for the area to influence wider land use priorities, transport – particularly future road and rail development – along with specifying High Street, green space, recreational and business uses. Collaboration with the Council in setting up a Town Centre management scheme should bring a clearer focus to getting improved environmental services, business development and crime reduction.
Mainstreaming The NDC faces continuing obstacles to influencing or skewing mainstream spending – particularly as LBL is unlikely to concentrate its services more intensively into the area. However, New Cross Gate has been identified as having some uniquely difficult environmental features – for example a high level of fly tipping and abandoned vehicles – and the Borough has agreed a local PSA target to reduce the number of unlicensed and abandoned vehicles. The Borough is also prepared to test models of neighbourhood management and the Partnership will need to explore options that might involve:
Developing complementary public services with police, healthcare providers, LBL and others Agree new service standards – particularly with the Borough – through SLA arrangements The Borough is therefore an important, natural partner for the NDC. It should also be recognised that – at corporate level – Lewisham is closely involved with the NDC’s management and services. The Borough played a critical role during the Partnership’s previous period of difficulty and has supplied practical support during the period of recovery.
New Deal for Communities 20 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
SECTION 7 DEVELOPMENT, LEARNING AND PLANNING
The Partnership The NDC has undergone a major transition and its collective sense of direction and optimism has grown. It has weathered a very rough patch and emerged stronger. It now has a well managed and skilled staff team, a good Board and a supportive local authority. These are features, however, that one might reasonably expect to have been present from the very beginning. So, the Partnership is essentially at a position it should have been 2 years ago – except that it has the advantage of a suite of good projects that have been delivering beneficial services to parts of the NDC area.
Nonetheless, the Partnership can feel some satisfaction in having developed itself into a more resilient organisation. Its governance has been enhanced, its identity and recognition in the community has been strengthened, it is making decisions in a reflective environment, planning its activities better and is able to confidently justify decisions to spend money.
Developing, learning and changing Having gone through considerable turbulence in its first 2½ years, it may seem perverse to argue that it should change further. However, this is exactly what the Partnership needs to do. The NDC programme has another 7 years to run and it needs to learn from its experience and adapt to the rapidly changing economic and social environment in which it operates. It has to become sufficiently flexible to identify new opportunities and needs. It has to be bold enough to shut-down services that have served their purpose – either because outcomes have been achieved or mainstream services have taken the strain. Most of all it needs to have the political savvy to work well with major public agencies that struggle to reconcile local needs with nationally imposed performance targets. Project development has considerably improved – it is more consistent with the NDC’s objectives although it remains true that a number of services have been commissioned that are more pragmatic and responsive to immediate demands. During the current year, a substantial number of new projects have come forward and been developed for appraisal. Whilst all of these projects meet identified needs in the area, the Partnership may have to resolve the risk inherent in responding to over-high expectations with a plethora of small-scale services. As it becomes a more mature, stable organisation – and less reactive – the Partnership faces a real choice between trying to respond to all the area’s needs and an alternative approach that is more selective but is more effective across a narrower range of service delivery. This choice has to shape the forthcoming Year 4 Delivery Plan for which the Partnership started its planning process with a Board awayday in October. This represents a turning point for the Partnership. The new plan should benefit from at least 3 cycles of theme groups and Board meetings – plus a sequence of community consultation – before it is submitted to the Government Office. The process has started with a fundamental review of the objectives in each of the 5 themes informed by evidence from baseline research, the results of this national evaluation and evidence from other NDCs. Each theme group – supported by a senior manager – will be asked to review its current and proposed projects in the context of the revised objectives. Each will also plan a consultation process with relevant voluntary organisations and principal stakeholders to calibrate revisions to the plan. More importantly, the Board has begun to take a fundamental look at its Programme outcomes and the ultimate direction the NDC is likely to take during its remaining years. As the volume of activity starts to increase, the Partnership is starting to deliver a potentially unwieldy number of
New Deal for Communities 21 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership projects that have only limited links with the underlying rationale behind choosing New Cross Gate for this type of area based initiative in the first place. There are four main weaknesses to the programme’s current configuration:
a “dash for results” in the first two years has left the Partnership with plenty of quick-win projects but a programme that lacks coherence and contains very little serious emphasis on its longer-term results the Delivery Plan contains such an unwieldy volume of baseline conditions, outputs, milestones and outcomes – that the Partnership has downplayed their significance the Partnership has not implemented a monitoring and evaluation system capable of recording the mix of results or maintaining and updating the baseline conditions – many of which rely on data that are difficult to update projects contained in the programme are insufficiently tested for either strategic fit or for their contribution to eventual outcomes. Consequently, the Partnership does not really know if economic and social conditions in the area have improved – and it cannot tell if its projects have delivered outputs that are contributing to these better outcomes over the longer term. The most pressing requirements are to ensure the NDC has a good monitoring and evaluation framework. It also needs a comprehensive and reliable baseline with a manageable number of indicators – that can be updated fairly regularly – and which directly relate to the outputs and intermediate outcomes of the programme. This will require good capture and analysis of data – using management information from projects and from other sources of evaluation information such as participant follow-up surveys or from other service providers (for example the Connexions service for school beneficiaries after they pass the age-16 threshold). The Partnership has already started to remedy some of its identified weaknesses by undertaking an options appraisal of its choices ahead of the Year 4 Delivery Plan. The Partnership seems likely to reject the easier option – of simply sharpening-up its current programme and devising a good monitoring and evaluation system. It seems more likely to opt for a combination based on:
investing effort into rationalising and simplifying its current programme whilst injecting a stronger overall logic to the programme and its component themes and projects, ensuring that cross-theme linkages are strengthened and clearer connections made between baseline conditions, outputs and intermediate outcomes. a more radical and fundamental review of the programme, its original assumptions and the outcomes it aspires to deliver. The choice taken by the Partnership will be important. New Cross Gate is an area of urban disadvantage that has experienced all the dislocation of rapid economic change in London. In the past, it has been poorly served by many public agencies whilst market-driven services have kept their distance too. New Cross Gate has great potential. Much of the headline evidence shows that it is far from being an affluent area: it has an employment rate almost 10 percentage points adrift of the Borough average and has low household income. However, New Cross Gate does not suffer from the most acute problems of physical isolation or worklessness that characterise many other NDCs. Instead it faces a unique set of inner urban challenges relating to its deteriorating environment, chronic poor health, its remarkable diversity, population transience and the struggle to integrate and educate a rising young population. Unlike many other difficult neighbourhoods, New Cross Gate combines stark social need and underachievement with considerable opportunities that are presented by its proximity to economic growth. It has the potential to overcome its challenges and align itself with the extraordinary potential that is made available by lying within easy reach of some of the most rapid jobs growth and flourishing urban regeneration anywhere in Europe. The challenge for the NDC is to ensure that the people of the neighbourhood share in this growing prosperity.
New Deal for Communities 22 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
SECTION 8 CONCLUSIONS AND KEY POINTS
Robustness of Partnership The Board was re-constituted in 2002 following a full scale election of resident members and the appointment of a wide range of representatives drawn from external partners. Resident elections will be held again in 2004 and occasional vacancies have been filled during the year. Loss of some members has been a disappointment, but the Board has benefited from a substantial core of fully engaged members from the community and from agencies. The good representation on the Board of most major service provider or strategic organisation in North Lewisham represents a real strength of the Partnership. The Board enjoyed strong leadership from its interim Chair and the recent appointment of a new permanent Chair represents a significant step in maturation of the NDC and its governance. Board sub-committees, theme groups and other steering groups have been established to manage the Board’s business and to widen the breadth of external engagement and specialist advice.
There is still some lack of clarity about the precise role of Board members and the Board has continued to be distracted by relatively small-scale operational concerns. Despite this, the Board has a far stronger grasp of the NDC’s overall vision, the Delivery Plan and its relationship with national strategies, the wider regeneration environment in Lewisham and its fit with regeneration and economic growth elsewhere in London. The Board’s planning processes have improved and this is evidenced by the Partnership’s approach to its Year 4 Delivery Plan and the important strategic choices that will be embedded in it. Board meetings themselves are well organised and managed, the information presented to them is of a good standard and decisions are taken on the basis of sound evidence and well-analysed options. Complex decisions are not rushed through the Board – not least because all the preparatory work on appraisal and approval decisions is taken outside the Board itself. Theme groups are beginning to work well and are clearly lightening the workload for the Board to take decisions that are well considered.
Although the Partnership has on its Board senior representatives from many key public agencies, not all of these organisations are having a significant influence on the NDC’s strategies. More importantly, the NDC is making limited headway in changing the priorities and spending patterns of those agencies.
The management and staff team have been re-invigorated by a programme of training and recruitment. Morale is good and the staff team has a much clearer understanding of the Partnership’s strategy and – most significantly – how each individual staff member’s work and responsibilities fit into delivery of the strategy. The staff team enjoys a degree of devolved responsibility and have responded to this by working on their own initiative to develop ideas and service improvement.
On a less positive note however, the considerable internal improvements to the Partnership have yet to be felt externally. The NDC’s is still not communicating itself and its ambitions well to the community and low levels of participation therefore remain a key weakness. This is partly because the model of participation is not right.
Although the Board benefits from a good body of local representatives – both residents and local organisations – there remains a legitimacy dilemma. Firstly, there is a potential tension between the functions of elected residents and organisational representatives in relation to elected members of Lewisham Council who sit on the Board. The presence of Councillors (and officers) helps to cement the essential relationship with the Borough Council but it also sets up a conflict about who “speaks for” the neighbourhood.
New Deal for Communities 23 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Secondly, the community engagement model that has effectively been imposed on this – and every other – NDC does not work well in such a heterogenous area. Many active voluntary groups and local Tenants Associations have good informal methods of accountability, but very little of the neighbourhood is “organised” and cannot easily be formally be “represented” on the NDC Board – and probably never will be. Instead the Partnership has to identify new methods to engage with local people as “customers” as well as “citizens”. Traditional consultation mechanisms have to be augmented by marketing tools that listen to people individually as well as collectively and do so in a 24 hours environment in which people are difficult to meet, never mind engage. A Coherent Programme The Partnership has continued to suffer from the absence of a coherent strategy. Until recently, the programme has mainly been a collection of projects and services that can be said to approximately meet a number of identified needs. The NDC started its life with a number of substantial capital items in its programme, but these have been replaced short-term with a considerable number of revenue projects that have addressed immediate service shortcomings in the area. There has been little serious debate about the relative weighting that should be given to different needs or a clear articulation of the logic behind the range of services developed. The Partnership has wound-down a small number of poorly performing services so that now every individual project has considerable merit and delivers services of value to beneficiaries. With the re- establishment of a theme-based structure to the programme, services have begun to more closely match the objectives of the programme and a framework is in place that will help the programme achieve more coherence. Not all themes are performing equally however and staff resources have had to be re-balanced to ensure that weaker areas – for example Jobs and Training – are better resourced and able to deliver. The Partnership’s planning for year 4 has now begun to position different projects and services in the correct logic chain: understanding baseline conditions; identifying requirements; project appraisal, service delivery; and monitoring and evaluating impact on the underlying conditions. Projects are placed within themes and cross-theme relevances are identified so that projects contribute towards inter-related outcomes – for example the cross-over between youth activities (education theme), safer public places (environment theme) and crime reduction (safer communities theme). Over the first 2 years, the NDC commissioned and acquired a substantial body of research, service mapping and benchmarking evidence that illuminated the extent and complexity of needs within the community. Some of this evidence base is excellent not simply because of the quality of information it yields but the inclusive processes used to define it – and the Health Impact Assessment is the best example of this. Useful feasibility work was undertaken ahead of several new services, in particular, the childcare training project which clearly identified the evidence of need, demand and supply conditions. The Partnership also has a good track record of public consultation – particularly with the Healthy Living Centre and its Youth Strategy. However it has become increasingly unclear whether much of the Partnership’s research and intelligence has been effectively used to design projects or how the approval processes has been justified by the available evidence of need. Some of the baseline data is inconsistent and in some cases incorrect. Much of it has been superseded by evidence from the 2001 Census – although even this is now more than 2 years old – with most of the best information only becoming available in recent months with the release by ONS of data at Output Area level. Lastly, the Partnership has begun to re-balance the amount of effort spent on micro-management of many projects in order to concentrate more on the overall programme. However, this remains a potential weakness. The majority of projects are delivering well, but monitoring needs to be more
New Deal for Communities 24 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership systematic so that under-achieving projects are identified earlier and performance standards are met consistently. Resources, Financial Management and Administration Finance The Partnership has made significant improvements to its financial administration – firstly to reach the minimum compliance requirements of the 2002 Audit Report; and secondly to provide management and the Board with accurate and timely data on project performance and the overall programme position. System K is fully installed and provides the required standard of financial and output information required. The standard of reporting to the Board began to improve in late 2002 and the quality and accuracy of information has been transformed with the appointment of an experienced finance manager. Board members now say they have considerable confidence in the standard of financial reporting. However there are still some weaknesses in the quality and accuracy of inputs to the system from projects. The project appraisal and approval system has been fully overhauled and this has delivered 3 main benefits: firstly the appraisal process is divided into 2 stages meaning that proposals can be designed and fine-tuned in response to first-stage comments before proceeding to full appraisal; secondly the approval process has been delegated from the full Board so that less time is taken up with detailed consideration of projects; thirdly, appraisal is becoming more tightly aligned to theme requirements and to the strategic reviews of each theme group. Staffing The Partnership has historically suffered from long-term personnel problems exacerbated by a continuum of short-term expedient recruitment decisions and the impact of 2 previous Directors departing unexpectedly. An ad hoc staff structure with employees on a wide range of contingent contractual terms bred an atmosphere of insecurity and low commitment. Combined with poor management and leadership, these conditions led to poor motivation and inconsistent work standards. There was a very weak team spirit in which staff tended to work in highly individualised ways, keeping knowledge to themselves and, consequently, efforts to achieve programme coherence were severely undermined by this culture. In addition, the staff team had the wrong balance of skills: too few people had an understanding of financial systems or project cycle management and the administrative support function was under-strength. The organisation was housed in accommodation that was totally inadequate for either staff requirements or for any interface with the public. The organisation was under-equipped with desktop PCs and had such poor systems, software and procedures that it failed to adequately exploit ICT in streamlining administrative functions. This situation substantially changed in the middle of 2003. A full staff team is now in place, working within a structure that matches the Programme’s themes and meets its operational requirements. There is a good proportion of senior experienced staff in post and systems are in place to retain and develop the skills of more junior personnel. Improvement to the morale and motivation of staff has been one of the most significant developments of 2003. Existing employees who were retained are now working to their full potential whilst new recruits have been inducted into a team that has a better sense of identity and purpose. Previous levels of turnover and dissatisfaction have been reduced significantly. All the staff are engaged on normal contracts and their working environment has been dramatically improved. The staff team also has more contact with the Board – partly because there is an extensive infrastructure of sub committees and theme groups that are supported by different staff members – but also because the new work culture has discarded the previous very hierarchical reporting structure. Despite this, many Board members are unclear about exactly who does what in the staff team.
New Deal for Communities 25 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Assets The NDC has very few physical assets of its own and does not yet have any comprehensively mapped intelligence about community assets that might be used by projects and services. The NDC has completely re-timetabled its original assumptions about capital spend although it has made investments through environmental upgrades and area lighting. It has two key capital developments underway: firstly acquisition of premises to house its employment and training facilities; secondly, feasibility to develop the Healthy Living Centre. The Partnership has not yet considered how its capital assets might underpin a long-term set of sustainable services. In its early days, the Partnership had very ambitious plans for its incorporation, full financial delegation and the early acquisition of a sizable asset register. These proved to be thoroughly premature and badly planned and – partly as a reaction to this – the Partnership seems to have consciously avoided thinking about its eventual exit strategy and how it might want to configure a portfolio of assets ahead of any decision to convert (say) to a Development Trust. Diversity, Race Equality and Fair Access Recognising that exactly half the neighbourhood’s population is non-white, the Partnership has now taken decisive steps to implement a race equality strategy. Membership of the Board and theme groups have begun to reflect a good diversity balance although the staff team composition shows a little less progress.
The Board has committed itself to an action plan for equality and diversity and has unequivocally indicated its desire to address the effects of discrimination and public service failure on ethnic minorities. Specific staff appointments, staff development and training, communications work and outreach all form aspects of the emerging strategy. Equality and diversity considerations are being developed by each of the theme groups, further work with stakeholders and research is being undertaken – and all policy developments are to be reviewed to test their contribution to diversity and fair access.
The Partnership also recognises that it has some catching-up to do – as the extent of change in the area has only begun to be fully recognised. In particular, the NDC will want to understand the emerging perspectives and needs of recently arrived communities such as Turkish/Kurds, Somali and Afghan communities. Gender and disability equality has not yet been closely addressed by the Partnership. Working with Other Agencies The Partnership has forged strong links with the local authority, police service, Primary Care Trust and with the primary schools in the area. Whilst the Board has strong representation at a senior level from many other public agencies, operational partnerships are still to develop fully. Voluntary sector organisations are extensively involved as delivery agencies but the voluntary sector as a whole is less engaged as stakeholders. Involvement of employers – particularly from the private sector – is quite limited however.
The key changes required to develop these relationships more fully include:
Designing more complementary services with police, healthcare, LBL and others Some adjustments to membership of the Board or to recruitment onto theme groups Identifying ways to change working practices within other agencies Of pressing concern is the lack of engagement with Jobcentre Plus and the LSC – and it is one ancillary objective for this year’s evaluation to help the NDC make these connections. Of longer term significance, the Partnership will need to engage more fully with the GLA “family”, particularly the London Development Agency and with Thames Gateway and the UDC that will manage much of the significant growth within the Eastern Boroughs.
New Deal for Communities 26 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Working with Residents and the Community The Partnership still faces considerable obstacles to working with local people. Last year’s report warned that community involvement had been damaged by decisions taken in year 2 that abandoned theme groups and, having set-up a Community Panel, let this forum dissipate. Re- establishment of theme groups has helped revive wider involvement in the NDC’s activities, but these are not only the only vehicles for community engagement. The Partnerships needs to explore more imaginative mechanisms to communicate and work with residents. The area’s population is extremely varied and only relatively small numbers of people can be engaged through formal means like voluntary and community groups. In particular, it needs to develop better communication with the neighbourhood and use focus groups and other marketing tools to capture views, aspirations and ideas. Learning, Improvement and Forward Planning Previous evaluation reports have identified the Partnership’s failure to systematically review its performance, highlight its achievements and learn from them. Towards the latter part of 2003, this was being addressed as a part of the NDC’s approach to its Year 4 delivery plan and to a fundamental review of its progress towards outcomes. The Partnership has begun to recognise the risks associated with a programme that contains a large number of projects, many of which are reactive to over-high expectations. The Partnership is using its subcommittees and theme groups to simplify its mix of projects and to concentrate on services that have clear impacts on the Partnership’s long term objectives. The Board had previously intended to establish a Mainstream Services Panel to identify ways of refocusing public agencies’ services into the area and mainstreaming the results of early projects. This has had limited success, partly because the Partnership has been unable learn from its success because it has not developed an adequate monitoring and evaluation framework and has an unreliable baseline and an unmanageably large number of indicators. The Partnership is very aware of these shortcomings and has started to focus carefully on measuring outputs that can achieve longer term outcomes. Results The NDC is reaching the end of its 3rd year and, whilst a large amount of activity is underway, only a few projects are showing tangible results. Two larger environmental improvement projects have been successfully implemented and the majority of a 12-strong Neighbourhood Wardens team has been recruited and are patrolling. School pupil support services are running at their planned volumes and results are awaited from a formal evaluation. Additional pupil support projects have been launched in secondary schools and are running slightly below target activity due to late starts. Health awareness services, projects helping access sports, leisure and healthy lifestyle activities have been underway for more than a year although output numbers have not been fully validated. An employment and enterprise support project has delivered throughout the year and has helped more than 150 individuals with advice, guidance and personal support. Childminder training and a new Youth Employment project have been launched with some outputs recorded. The Community Development theme has provided bus trips for the Somerville Estate and the Community Chest has been launched with £64,000 expected to be distributed during the year to small voluntary organisations Attributable results of these projects are hard to quantify, but a number of developments are of significance:
Key stage 2 results have improved in the primary schools Informally recorded resident satisfaction with environmental improvements Reductions in some types of opportunistic crime Headline unemployment has fallen Fly-tipping and abandoned vehicles reduced
New Deal for Communities 27 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Ten key points for the Partnership 1. Make more friends: develop stronger relationships with the mainstream agencies – especially Jobcentre Plus and the LSC in the short term – and, in the medium to long term, with business interests and influential economic agencies like the LDA. 2. Get neighbourhood management under way: The NDC should establish a vehicle like a mainstream services panel and identify pilot opportunities to test models of neighbourhood management with larger public agencies. 3. Think bigger and more long-term: identify how the neighbourhood can benefit from the major economic and regeneration developments that will impact the Thames Gateway Boroughs. How can the NDC plug-in to the resilient economic growth of central London? The NDC needs to be better engaged with the plans of the Borough, the Mayor and LDA and the delivery vehicles for Thames Gateway expansion. 4. A more coherent programme: projects and themes need to be more mutually reinforced. Stop delivering self-contained projects and get the different service providers to work together. 5. Get heard better: the Partnership needs to communicate more effectively with the locality – not through newsletters or plaques on walls – but through word-of-mouth and modest promotion of successes 6. Listen to the community: formal methods of consultation deliver very limited returns and can produce information that has inbuilt bias. Develop market research tools that offer more textured opinions from a good cross section of residents. 7. Fix the MIS: better monitoring, reporting, analysis and measurement of results. Keep on top of the baseline data and rigorously match the performance to the results. Fine tune the services and be ready to change the programme based on this evidence. 8. Reach out: diversity is a great potential strength of New Cross Gate – the Partnership needs to connect with its ethnic minorities, especially recent immigrants, and can do this most effectively through the primary schools: help parents better their skills and help children integrate and achieve. 9. Train the Board: most of the resident Board members have very few specialist skills – and why should they? Help build their confidence, knowledge and expertise – but don’t try and turn them into quasi-staff. They will not have the time to oversee every small decision. Instead, help them to learn the “non-executive” skills – to stand back and question where the organisation is going. 10. Master-planning could deliver big results: the full scale master-planning has been delayed slightly to fit-in with a TfL feasibility exercise but has recently been tendered. If taken seriously by the Borough planners, the GLA, TfL and other statutory planning agencies, this could be one of the biggest and most influential area-wide initiatives promoted by the Partnership. Selection of a good team of planners will be essential to make sure that the plan is rooted in realistic land use but is sufficiently forward-looking to engage with the London-wide and sub- regional development opportunities for business growth, new housing, transportation and environmental sustainability.
New Deal for Communities 28 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
ANNEXES
Annexe 1 Templates and Commentary
Annexe 2 Household Survey and Administrative Data
Annexe 3 Focus Group Reports
Annexe 4 VFM Case Study
New Deal for Communities 29 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
ANNEXE 1
Research Templates and Commentary
New Deal for Communities 30 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Explaining the Purpose of this Annexe
This Annexe includes the research templates completed during the fieldwork, together with a commentary on their significance. These templates are one of the main sources of information for the main report.
The templates and this Annexe are structured as follows:
Section 1 Context 1.1 Wider representation 1.2 Other strategies 1.3 Policy context: engagement with theme and equality agendas
Section 2 Resident Involvement 2.1 Resident involvement in NDC 2.2 BME resident involvement in NDC
Section 3 The Partnership 3.1 Composition of the Board 3.2 Changes in Board membership 3.3 Elections 3.4 Legal status 3.5 Board operation 3.5a Board development 3.6 Staffing 3.7 Systems and procedures 3.8 Local evaluation 3.9 Progress in equalities activities 3.10 The delivery process 3.11 Releasing and constraining factors on progress 3.12 Stakeholder relations 3.13 Learning and reflection 3.14 Theories of change
Section 4 Project Evaluation and Value for Money (VFM) 4.1 Achievements and Changes 4.2 Basic project description 4.3 Assessing the delivery chain
Section 5 Stakeholders and Agencies 5.1 Agency activities 5.2 Constraints on working with NDC Partnerships 5.3 Role of organisation in NDC Partnership working 5.4 Progress on mainstreaming
Section 6 Overviews of Achievement 6.1 Overview
New Deal for Communities 31 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
SECTION 1: CONTEXT
TEMPLATE 1.1: Wider representation (Partnership Board, Programme Team, Agencies)
Information in these templates shows that the NDC is reasonably well engaged with a number of main agencies and partnerships. However, the partnership strategy is not significantly informed or influenced by the agencies or plans that are external to the Borough. National policy influences are not particularly strong.
No. of respondents 7 Specify title, role, purpose, lead organisation etc. in commentary Is the NDC a member of other bodies and working parties? Worklessness Worklessness LSP Sure Start Connexions LSC Health Safety Community Environment Housing Education Race Equality No consensus Partnership Board 9 9 9 9 9 9 members NDC staff
TEMPLATE 1.2: Other strategies (Information based on the NDC Programme Team)
NDC considered in strategy NDC included in forward strategy/action points Community Strategy Y Y Neighbourhood Renewal Y Y Strategy Community safety Y Y Early years Y N Local learning plan N N Regional Economic Strategy N N Framework for Regional N N Employment and Skills Action LSC N N Connexions N N Community cohesion N N
New Deal for Communities 32 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
TEMPLATE 1.3: Policy context: engagement with theme and equality agendas
Influence is mainly due to factors that are:
local local and national National Education Overall high Crime influence on Health partnership Environment and agenda is: housing
Community Employment and
development skills
low
New Deal for Communities 33 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
SECTION 2: RESIDENT INVOLVEMENT
Resident involvement remains a relatively weak aspect of the NDC although most respondents recognise that this has begun to improve. The Partnership Board remains the most optimistic about the pace of improvement. Whilst there is a reasonable level of BME resident involvement, most respondents acknowledge that this has neither improved nor worsened.
TEMPLATE 2.1: Resident Involvement in NDC (Partnership Board)
No. of respondents 4 Tick ONE box only Increased Decreased Stayed NA DK No same consensus Resident involvement in 9 strategic planning and decision making/influence over direction of programme Resident membership of NDC 9 forums, theme groups etc Resident involvement in project 9 design and development Resident involvement in project 9 appraisal and approval Resident involvement in project 9 management and delivery Resident participation in 9 project monitoring and review Resident participation in 9 evaluation
TEMPLATE 2.1: Resident Involvement in NDC (Programme Team)
No. of respondents 3 Tick ONE box only Increased Decreased Stayed NA DK No same consensus Resident involvement in strategic planning and decision making/influence over direction 9 of programme Resident membership of NDC 9 forums, theme groups etc Resident involvement in project 9 design and development Resident involvement in project 9 appraisal and approval Resident involvement in project 9 management and delivery Resident participation in project 9 monitoring and review Resident participation in 9 evaluation
New Deal for Communities 34 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
TEMPLATE 2.1: Resident Involvement in NDC (Agencies)
No. of respondents 3 Tick ONE box only Increased Decreased Stayed NA DK No same consensus Resident involvement in 9 strategic planning and decision making/influence over direction of programme Resident membership of NDC 9 forums, theme groups etc Resident involvement in project 9 design and development Resident involvement in project 9 appraisal and approval Resident involvement in project 9 management and delivery Resident participation in 9 project monitoring and review Resident participation in 9 evaluation
TEMPLATE 2.2: BME Resident Involvement in NDC (Partnership Board)
No. of respondents 3 Tick ONE box Only answer if YES only No No Yes DK Increased Decreased Stayed same consensus BME Community 9 involvement in strategic planning and decision making/influence over direction of programme BME Community 9 9 membership of NDC forums, theme groups etc. BME Community 9 9 involvement in project design and development Projects run for and by BME 9 9 communities BME Community 9 9 involvement in project appraisal and approval BME Community 9 participation in monitoring, evaluation and project review activities
New Deal for Communities 35 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
TEMPLATE 2.2: BME Resident Involvement in NDC (Programme Team)
No. of respondents 4
Tick ONE box only Only answer if YES Stayed No No Yes DK Increased Decreased same consensus BME Community 9 9 involvement in strategic planning and decision making/influence over direction of programme BME Community 9 9 membership of NDC forums, theme groups etc. BME Community 9 involvement in project design and development Projects run for and by BME 9 communities BME Community 9 9 involvement in project appraisal and approval BME Community 9 9 participation in monitoring, evaluation and project review activities
TEMPLATE 2.2: BME Resident Involvement in NDC (Agencies)
No. of respondents 3
Tick ONE box only Only answer if YES Stayed No No Yes DK Increased Decreased same consensus BME Community 9 9 involvement in strategic planning and decision making/influence over direction of programme BME Community 9 9 membership of NDC forums, theme groups etc. BME Community 9 9 involvement in project design and development Projects run for and by BME 9 9 communities BME Community 9 9 involvement in project appraisal and approval BME Community 9 9 participation in monitoring, evaluation and project review activities
New Deal for Communities 36 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
SECTION 3: THE PARTNERSHIP
The Partnership Board has remained relatively stable but the staff team has changed substantially. Structures, systems and processes have undergone further overhaul and improvement. Composition of the Board demonstrates a reasonably diverse membership although BME membership is well below the area’s population benchmark level. There is general agreement between programme team and Board that systems and procedures have improved although not substantially. There is less detailed knowledge amongst external agencies about these aspects of the NDC’s organisation and management. Respondents indicate that a relatively low priority has been given to evaluation by the Partnership.
TEMPLATE 3.1: Composition of Board
Role Organisational affiliation Board status No. of months on the board Ethnicity Gender (M/F) Age Resident NDC (Y/N) 1. Chair None Independent 2 A F 2 N 2. Resident Elected Representative 17 A F 2 Y 3. Resident Co-opted Substitute representative 6 D F 2 Y 4. Resident Elected Representative 17 A M 2 Y 5. Resident Co-opted Substitute representative 6 D M 2 Y 6. Resident Elected Representative 17 A F 3 Y 7. Resident Co-opted Substitute representative 6 A M 2 Y 8. Resident Elected Representative 17 D M 2 Y 9. Resident Elected Representative 17 D F 3 Y 10. Resident Elected Representative 17 D F 2 Y 11. Stakeholder PCT Representative DK A M 2 Y 12. Stakeholder Voluntary Sector Representative 17 A F 2 DK 13. Stakeholder LBL Representative DK A M 2 N 14. Stakeholder LBL Representative DK D F 2 N 15. Stakeholder LSP Representative 17 A M 2 N 16. Stakeholder FE College Representative DK A M 2 N 17. Stakeholder Local Business Representative 17 A M 2 N 18. Stakeholder Credit Union Representative 17 A F 2 DK 19. Stakeholder Police Representative DK A M 2 N Housing 20. Stakeholder Representative 17 A M 2 N Association
Ethnicity – uses the following CRE codes: A. White - British; Irish; Other White B. Mixed - White and Black Caribbean; White and Black African; White and Asian; Other mixed C. Asian or Asian British - Indian; Pakistani; Bangladeshi; Other Asian D. Black or Black British - Black Caribbean; Black African; Other Black
New Deal for Communities 37 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
E. Chinese or Other ethnic group – Chinese; Other ethnic group Age – uses the following bandings: 1. Under 25 2. 25 – 59 3. 60+
TEMPLATE 3.2: Changes In Board Membership
What percentage of Board Members are from BME 30% communities?
Does the Board have a majority of resident No representatives?
Over the past 12 months: Has the size of the board changed? Stayed the same Has the proportion of resident board members changed? Stayed the same Has the number of Board members from BME communities Stayed the same changed?
Have new agencies or interest groups joined the board? No If Yes, who?
Have agencies or interest groups left the board and not No been replaced? If Yes, who?
Has the Chair of the Board changed? Yes Has the Chief Executive changed? Yes
TEMPLATE 3.3: Elections
Do you hold elections for resident board members? Yes
If No: How are resident board members selected? Why did you choose this method?
If Yes: How were the elections conducted? (Please tick) Postal ballot Polling stations Telephone voting Electronic voting Public meeting 9 Other (please specify) – Nominations and ballot
How often are elections held? Every 2 years When was the most recent election held? May 2002 What was the turnout? (express as a percentage of maximum turnout) What was the turnout in the most recent Council elections covering the NDC area?
New Deal for Communities 38 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
TEMPLATE 3.4: Legal Status
What is the legal status of the Partnership? (tick all boxes that apply) Co. ltd. by Community Charity No legal status Other (specify) guarantee development trust 9
Has it changed over the last 12 months? No If Yes, why?
Who is the Accountable Body? London Borough of Lewisham Has it changed in the last 12 months? No If Yes, why?
TEMPLATE 3.5: Board Operation (Partnership Board)
No. of respondents 4 Tick ONE box only Currently ... Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree comment DK/No No consensus In the last 12 the has months situation ... No consensus Board members are clear 9 Stayed the same about their roles and responsibilities Appropriate structures for 9 Improved accountability for Board members are being developed or are in place Boards members have the 9 Stayed the same necessary skills to carry out their roles effectively Adequate training and 9 Stayed the same support are provided for Board members Board members take a 9 Improved strategic and long term view Board members are 9 Stayed the same generally happy with the time commitment required of them for NDC Board membership is 9 Stayed the same stable Relationships within the 9 Improved Board are harmonious Relationships between the 9 Improved Board and staff are harmonious
New Deal for Communities 39 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
TEMPLATE 3.5: Board Operation (Programme Team)
No. of respondents 2
Tick ONE box only Currently ... Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree comment DK/No No consensus In the last 12 the has months situation ... No consensus Board members are 9 Improved clear about their roles and responsibilities Appropriate structures 9 Improved for accountability for Board members are being developed or are in place Boards members 9 Stayed the same have the necessary skills to carry out their roles effectively Adequate training 9 Stayed the same and support are provided for Board members Board members take 9 Stayed the same a strategic and long term view Board members are 9 Stayed the same generally happy with the time commitment required of them for NDC Board membership is 9 Stayed the same stable Relationships within 9 Improved the Board are harmonious Relationships 9 Improved between the Board and staff are harmonious
New Deal for Communities 40 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
TEMPLATE 3.5a Board Development
Does the NDC have a Training and Development Plan for the No Board? If No, are there plans to introduce one? No If No, why not?
Is Board performance assessed? No If Yes, how?
TEMPLATE 3.6: Staffing
How many staff (full time equivalent) are directly employed 17 (full complement should be through the Mgt & Admin budget? 22) How many staff (FTE) are employed through project funding? Is the Partnership fully staffed? No How many staff have left in the past 12 months? 10 How many staff have been recruited in the past 12 months? 18 Does the Partnership's body of staff broadly represent the ethnic No make up of the NDC area? If No, give details of divergence Slightly under representative (NDC benchmark is 50%)
What is the gender balance on the staff team? 38% Male 62% Female. What percentage of staff are local residents? 16% How many volunteers are actively involved in the 0 Partnership?
Does the Partnership... Over the last 12 months has this ... Have a turnover of more than one third of its staff each Y Increased year? Experience difficulties in recruiting staff with appropriate Y Decreased skills? Employ labour from within the NDC area? Y Increased Employ its own staff to deliver projects? Y Stayed the same Employ management and administrative staff? Y Increased Use secondees or staff employed by other organisations Y Stayed the same (e.g. accountable body) to deliver projects? Use secondees or staff employed by other organisations Y Stayed the same (e.g. accountable body) to deliver management and administrative systems? Use consultants/regeneration agencies to deliver Y Decreased projects? Use consultants/regeneration agencies to undertake Y Stayed the same activities such as evaluation, running elections, training events etc? Use consultants/regeneration agencies to deliver N Decreased management and administrative systems? Employ temporary/interim staff? Y Stayed the same
New Deal for Communities 41 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
TEMPLATE 3.7: Systems and Procedures (Programme Team)
No. of respondents 4 Is the Partnership using Project Cycle Management? Yes If No, what is being used?
ONE answer only. Delete boxes that do not apply In the last 12 months have No Still working at it OK Performing well DK systems/ consensus procedures... Project development Ad hoc, exclusive - Some Inclusive, logical, Improved difficult to see links evidence of clear processes between problems links between for project and outcomes problems and development outcomes, but stages of project development not always apparent Appraisal Ad hoc, Clear criteria Projects Improved unsystematic but some appraised on time project appraisal delays in the according to clear system appraisal and agreed process criteria Risk Management No risk Some risk Risk Stayed the same management management management systems in place systems in systems in place place and incorporated into project appraisal/project development Management Information Systems Different teams NDC-wide MIS Well designed Improved have different in place but and operating systems, tracking delays due to MIS provide not possible, lack of training, topical and timely delays due to MIS programming data for tracking problems etc. funding and Tracking will projects be possible.
New Deal for Communities 42 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
TEMPLATE 3.7: Systems and Procedures (Partnership Board)
No. of respondents 3
Is the Partnership using Project Cycle Management? No they have used PMF
ONE answer only. Delete boxes that do not apply In the last 12 Performing months have No Still working at it OK DK well systems/ consensus procedures... Project development Ad hoc, exclusive Some Inclusive, Improved - difficult to see evidence of logical, clear links between links between processes for problems and problems and project outcomes outcomes, but development stages of project development not always apparent Appraisal Ad hoc, Clear criteria Projects Improved unsystematic but some appraised on time project appraisal delays in the according to clear system appraisal and agreed process criteria Risk Management No risk Some risk Risk Stayed the same management management management systems in place systems in systems in place place and incorporated into project appraisal/project development Management Information Systems Different teams NDC-wide MIS Well designed Improved have different in place but and operating systems, tracking delays due to MIS provide not possible, lack of training, topical and timely delays due to programming data for tracking MIS problems etc. funding and Tracking will projects be possible.
New Deal for Communities 43 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
TEMPLATE 3.7: Systems and Procedures (Agencies)
No. of respondents 2
Is the Partnership using Project Cycle Management? Yes If No, what is being used?
ONE answer only. Delete boxes that do not apply In the last 12 months have No Still working at it OK Performing well DK systems/ consensus procedures... Project development Ad hoc, exclusive - Some Inclusive, logical, Improved 9 difficult to see links evidence of clear processes Worsened/ between problems links between for project Stayed the same/ and outcomes problems and development DK outcomes, but stages of project development not always apparent Appraisal Ad hoc, Clear criteria Projects ImprovedWorsene 9 unsystematic but some appraised on time d/ project appraisal delays in the according to clear Stayed the same/ system appraisal and agreed DK process criteria Risk Management No risk Some risk Risk Stayed the same management management management systems in place systems in systems in place place and incorporated into project appraisal/project development Management Information Systems Different teams NDC-wide MIS Well designed Improved have different in place but and operating systems, tracking delays due to MIS provide not possible, lack of training, topical and timely delays due to programming data for tracking MIS problems etc. funding and Tracking will projects be possible.
New Deal for Communities 44 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
TEMPLATE 3.8: Local Evaluation
Has the Partnership... Currently Future Plans Identified a member of the management team with overall Y Y responsibility for evaluation Employed a dedicated team or member of staff to carry out/ N N support local evaluation Drawn up an evaluation plan N N Built evaluation into structures and management processes N N Established procedures for obtaining evaluation information N N Drawn up a programme for disseminating the results of evaluation N N Involved local people in evaluation N N Involved BME groups in evaluation N N Set up structures for involving local people in local evaluation (e.g. Y N sub-groups, steering groups etc) Started a rolling programme of evaluation N N Carried out interim evaluations Y N Carried out research with beneficiaries or service users? Y N Employed consultants/agencies to carry out aspects of local Y N evaluation Employed consultants/agencies to carry out all local evaluation Y N activities? Carried out project specific evaluation Y N Carried out cross-cutting evaluation i.e. across aspects of the N N programme Carried out evaluation which assess the impact of NDC activities N N on BME groups Changed projects as a result of evaluation Y N Changed aspects of the programme as a result of evaluation N N
What further support and training would the Partnership find useful in order to progress local evaluation activities?
The Partnership has already begun to utilise a range of information about successful delivery in other NDCs and area based initiatives. Further assistance – some peer learning between senior managers for example – would be well received.
Examples of good practice
In the face of poor performance data, the Partnership submitted the Opportunity Community employment and training project to evaluation before deciding whether to cease the external delivery contract and bring the service in-house
New Deal for Communities 45 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
EQUALITIES
There is a mixed pattern of inconsistent or uncertain answers reflecting the relatively low priority given, until recently, to race equality.
TEMPLATE 3.9: Progress in Equalities Activities (Partnership Board)
No. of respondents 2
Don't No Equalities activities No Yes know consensus Does the NDC monitor the Race 9 equality impacts of NDC projects? Does the NDC monitor other equalities 9 If Yes, which ones? impacts of NDC projects - e.g. gender / disability Has the NDC implemented an equalities 9 policy/strategy Are equalities issues considered as a 9 condition of project approval? Is there evidence of BME led/targeted 9 NDC projects? Does the NDC provide race 9 equality/diversity training for Board members? Does the NDC provide race 9 equality/diversity training for staff?
TEMPLATE 3.9: Progress in Equalities Activities (Programme Team)
No. of respondents 4
Don't No Equalities activities No Yes know consensus Does the NDC monitor the Race 9 equality impacts of NDC projects? Does the NDC monitor other equalities 9 If Yes, which ones? impacts of NDC projects - e.g. gender / disability Has the NDC implemented an equalities 9 policy/strategy Are equalities issues considered as a 9 condition of project approval? Is there evidence of BME led/targeted 9 NDC projects? Does the NDC provide race 9 equality/diversity training for Board members? Does the NDC provide race 9 equality/diversity training for staff?
New Deal for Communities 46 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
TEMPLATE 3.9: Progress in Equalities Activities (Agencies)
No. of respondents 1
Tick ONE box only Equalities Activities Don't No No Yes know consensus Does the NDC monitor the Race 9 equality impacts of NDC projects? Does the NDC monitor other equalities 9 If Yes, which ones? impacts of NDC projects - e.g. gender / disability Has the NDC implemented an equalities 9 policy/strategy Are equalities issues considered as a 9 condition of project approval? Is there evidence of BME led/targeted 9 NDC projects? Does the NDC provide race 9 equality/diversity training for Board members? Does the NDC provide race 9 equality/diversity training for staff?
New Deal for Communities 47 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
DELIVERY PROCESS
TEMPLATE 3.10: The Delivery Process (Partnership Board)
No. of respondents 2 Tick ONE box only No Factor SC C N A GA NI DK consensus Relationships with other Area Based 9 Initiatives Non NDC policy initiatives/changes 9
Commitment to mainstreaming from 9 stakeholder agencies Design/implementation of projects 9
Quality of data on local problems/issues 9 etc Internal management/financial systems 9
Staff turnover/human resource issues 9
External support: NRU 9
External support: GO 9
External support: NRAs 9
Internal evaluation activities 9
Quality of evidence base for regeneration 9 practitioners Original delivery plan 9
Community involvement in planning 9 and/or delivery Involvement of hard to reach groups in 9 planning and/or delivery Involvement of BME communities in 9 planning and/or delivery Partnership working 9
Community Cohesion 9
New Deal for Communities 48 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
TEMPLATE 3.10: The Delivery Process (Programme Team)
No. of respondents 4 Tick ONE box only No Factor SC C N A GA NI DK consensus Relationships with other Area Based 9 Initiatives Non NDC policy initiatives/changes 9
Commitment to mainstreaming from 9 stakeholder agencies Design/implementation of projects 9
Quality of data on local problems/issues 9 etc Internal management/financial systems 9
Staff turnover/human resource issues 9
External support: NRU 9
External support: GO 9
External support: NRAs 9
Internal evaluation activities 9
Quality of evidence base for regeneration 9 practitioners Original delivery plan 9
Community involvement in planning 9 and/or delivery Involvement of hard to reach groups in 9 planning and/or delivery Involvement of BME communities in 9 planning and/or delivery Partnership working 9
Community Cohesion 9
New Deal for Communities 49 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
TEMPLATE 3.10: The Delivery Process (Agencies)
No. of respondents 1 Tick ONE box only No Factor SC C N A GA NI DK consensus Relationships with other Area Based 9 Initiatives Non NDC policy initiatives/changes 9
Commitment to mainstreaming from 9 stakeholder agencies Design/implementation of projects
Quality of data on local problems/issues etc Internal management/financial systems
Staff turnover/human resource issues
External support: NRU
External support: GO
External support: NRAs
Internal evaluation activities
Quality of evidence base for regeneration practitioners Original delivery plan
Community involvement in planning and/or delivery Involvement of hard to reach groups in planning and/or delivery Involvement of BME communities in planning and/or delivery Partnership working
Community Cohesion
New Deal for Communities 50 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
TEMPLATE 3.11: Releasing and Constraining Factors on Progress (Partnership Board, Programme Team and Agencies)
No. of respondents 15
Theme Main Releasing Factors (two) Main Constraining Factors (two) Housing & the Participation of Borough in Limited operational relationship with Physical delivering environmental capital Hyde Housing Environment projects Improved cleansing services (fly tipping) and abandoned vehicle removal
Worklessness Strong underlying jobs growth No significant relationship established with Jobcentre Plus led to employment and training project “re-inventing the wheel” Reasonable range of employability No significant attention paid to support services elsewhere in North economically inactive population Lewisham who are distant from the labour
market
Crime Excellent high-level relationship with Best operational officers sometimes MPS taken out of the area for other (high priority) Met duties
Well designed environmental improvements, particularly highways and additional lighting
Health Good operational relationship with Major setbacks caused by failure to PCT develop feasible plans for the Health Living Centre – and additional difficulties caused by demands to augment HLC with an All Nations Centre Well developed set of leisure and healthy lifestyle projects well established
Education & Excellent networking between the 3 Limited engagement with LEA and Skills primary schools and nearby no relationship with LSC secondary schools
Development of family learning services helping to engage Lewisham College
New Deal for Communities 51 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Race A generally tolerant and inclusive Slow progress in the Partnership’s Equalities neighbourhood with little recent first 18 months to develop a race history of difficult community equality strategy relations Appointment of staff member(s) to Limited community groups for newly lead on diversity strategy arrived and smaller scale ethnic minorities
Community First appointments made to a team Disparate population groups living Cohesion of community development staff has in a relatively harsh physical begun to deliver better environment mitigates against communication and outreach – community group development particularly with Community Chest project helping to animate smaller voluntary groups Summer event a spectacular success giving the NDC considerable exposure and emphasising the message of a distinctive place Cross-theme Some good multi-theme linkages Majority of projects developed as outcomes emerging (particularly between fairly self-contained responses to environment, education and immediate needs community safety)
Determination shown by the Board and management to develop a more coherent programme
New Deal for Communities 52 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
TEMPLATE 3.12 Stakeholder relations - the extent to which the partnership has formed as an organisation and is goal directed
NDC Partnership has NDC Partnership has a clear unclear identity and is 1 2 3 4 5 organisational identity and ambivalent about purpose sense of purpose
Commentary: The Partnership has recovered well after a long period of uncertainty during which the Board’s leadership remained reasonably well focussed on its long term goals. The Stakeholders and the Partnership (Board and staff) are broadly in agreement about the NDC’s purpose and are generally agreed on priorities and tactics. However, there are different constituencies within the Partnership that have differing views about means towards ends. Externally, the NDC has suffered from low recognition amongst residents, it is starting to become better known as an organisation. However, its purpose, strategies and services are less well understood.
NDC agenda is defined by 1 2 3 4 5 NDC agenda is defined by professionals community
Commentary: A relatively small group of residents and community group representatives have a considerable influence on the projects and services. However, the majority of service ideas are generated from professionals – particularly those in mainstream public agencies – or from the staff of the NDC. The partnership has established a particularly tough appraisal process so the threshold for operationalising good ideas is set quite high. As a result, the ideas most likely to pass initial appraisal are those that benefit from technical expertise.
NDC Partnership mainly 1 2 3 4 5 NDC Partnership largely reacts to plans, proposals, initiates plans, proposals, projects initiated by others projects
Commentary: The NDC has just passed a turning point between projects and services that are mainly reactive and those that are primarily designed to meet the objectives of the NDC itself. The evidence base is not well used – partly because the baseline is unmanageable and may be inaccurate – and the Partnership is not using monitoring and evaluation tools to judge the effectiveness of many of its projects.
NDC programme team see NDC programme team see other agencies as the main 1 2 3 4 5 shortcomings in Partnership reason for any lack of as the main reason for any progress with delivery lack of progress with delivery
Commentary: The Partnership has undergone a period of fairly acute self-criticism and has probably placed slightly too much emphasis on its own organisational failings. A number of mainstream agencies have been conspicuously slow in coming forward to work with the NDC and some of this is traceable to local political infighting but the remainder is mainly due to the NDC having acquired a reputation for being in trouble. Lewisham has a generally good track record of partnership working and once the message gets out that the NDC has been really turned around, most agencies are likely to overcome their caution and work more enthusiastically with the Partnership. The example set by the Council – in particular its service Departments – will prove to be a good indicator to others.
New Deal for Communities 53 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
TEMPLATE 3.13: Learning and reflection - whether the partnership has become stuck, unable to learn and hence unable to adapt and progress the NDC agenda
Applies to which, if any, Applies to which, if any, part of the NDC (Board, tasks (delivery planning, agencies etc)? recruitment etc)? 1. They go round and round in circles 2. They are obsessed with ... Process. The Partnership has Delivery team been through several rounds of organisational re-invention 3. The discussion always comes down to .. 4. They can't attract the right... 5. The information isn't there to .. Properly monitor and evaluate Delivery team individual projects and the programme as a whole 6. X is not discussed
7. They don't seem to have Relating the baseline and Delivery team and Board made any progress in .. other evidence to the programme. 8. It doesn't seem to have Much of the employment Delivery planning occurred to them that .. theme has been delivering services that Jobcentre Plus (and its provider base) can offer at lower unit costs and with far better outcomes 9. A lot of time and effort seems to be wasted on ..
Commentary: The delivery team has been through a period of debilitating uncertainty and change. The Accountable Body’s audit report in 2002 revealed fundamental weaknesses in probity and financial management systems. This
Whilst the Board has been eager to focus on driving the programme forward, it has become
New Deal for Communities 54 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
TEMPLATE 3.14 Theories of Change
The NDC was originally conceived by the Borough which identified New Cross Gate as being an area within the generally deprived part of North Lewisham that ought to be a candidate for additional public support for two main reasons. Firstly, unlike Deptford, it had received very little specific regeneration funding and, secondly, it was an environmentally degraded area, generally quite poorly served by public agencies.
Consequently, its programme has been underpinned by the idea that a general uplifting of public services – by mainstreaming in some cases and simply applying NDC funding in the rest. The Partnership originally identified that it could improve public services by adopting a neighbourhood management model and influence the behaviour of those agencies by making a number of larger scale capital investments – like stimulating online learning by broadband-wiring parts of the neighbourhood; kick-starting new health services with a landmark Healthy Living Centre; or piggy- backing community facilities onto major housing redevelopments.
Some of these major projects have been given much lower priority, so the Partnership is now looking for another more fundamental “big idea” to animate change and deliver a better quality of life in the neighbourhood.
New Deal for Communities 55 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
SECTION 4: PROJECT EVALUATION AND VFM
This section includes an overview of a detailed project evaluation that we have undertaken, and which is included in full in Annexe 4.
TEMPLATE 4.1: Achievements and Changes (Theme outcome areas)
Outcome Theme If possible provide one example of a Tick if this Please rank project (or suite of projects) where project is the projects 1 sufficient activity has taken place to suitable for a to N (1 being warrant an in-depth project focused Beneficiary most preferred evaluation survey option) Housing & the Area environmental and lighting programme Physical (VFM review attached) Environment Worklessness 9 2 Childcare training
Crime 9 3 Diversionary sports activities
Health Sexual health project
Education & 9 1 Skills Community Pupil Support project
Race equality None suitable
Community Initiative None suitable
Cross-theme or other outcome None suitable areas
TEMPLATE 4.2: Basic project description
This project sought to undertake environmental infrastructure lighting works throughout the NDC area. The project delivered a range of environmental enhancements including lighting upgrading, pavements upgrades and where necessary upgrading to the carriageways in the NDC area. The project delivered upgrades to secondary borough roads.
New Deal for Communities 56 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
TEMPLATE 4.3: Assessing the delivery chain
Identify assessment by selecting the relevant number and deleting all other numbers 1 = not all; 2 = partial evidence; 3 = reasonable evidence; 4 = reasonable and improving; 5 = completely.
Do you think this project: Accurately reflects problems raised in the baseline data? 3 Is embedded in the wider policy context? 3 Has emerged through careful assessment of alternative options? 2 Is fully supported by other agencies? 3 Has received resources from other agencies? 4 Is likely to achieve anticipated outcomes? 3 Is sustainable? 4 Has identified beneficiaries? 2 Is addressing the needs of those beneficiaries? 3 Is effectively linked into any other similar/complementary 3 projects? Is effectively monitored? 2 Is part of a local NDC driven evaluation programme? 1
The project was based on evidence drawn from a report on street lighting and crime reduction and was identified as a priority in residents' survey. It was a fairly straight-forward environmental scheme and was not subjected to any detailed consideration of alternative, feasible options. It is clearly able to achieve anticipated outcomes as these were specified on the basis of quantifiable environmental improvements. The project is linked to achievement of broader crime and community safety outcomes and evidence will need to examine the relative incidence of street crime between improved and unimproved streets.
New Deal for Communities 57 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
SECTION 5: STAKEHOLDERS AND AGENCIES
This section records changes in Stakeholder and Agencies’ general structures, processes and funding streams. Evidence of these changes is then used to inform a detailed assessment of progress on mainstreaming. Progress on mainstreaming is an important indicator of the impact of NDC on major agencies and prospects for longer term sustainability.
TEMPLATE 5.1: Agency Activities (Agencies)
No. of respondents 3
Tick ONE box only Over the last 12 Strongly Agree DK/No Disagree Strongly No months ... Agree comment Disagree consensus My organisation has 9 considered NDC in the development of strategies Representatives of the 9 NDC partnership have been involved in partnerships and joint working initiated by my organisation My organisation has been 9 involved in the joint planning of projects with the NDC partnership My organisation has 9 developed or revised structures for working in partnership in the NDC area My organisation has 9 increased the level of mainstream funding available to the NDC area My organisation has 9 worked with the NDC to change the way that mainstream services are delivered in the area My organisation has 9 made a positive contribution to the work of the NDC Partnership My organisation has 9 evaluated its approach to working with the NDC partnership and/or its activities in the NDC area
New Deal for Communities 58 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
TEMPLATE 5.2: Constraints on working with NDC Partnerships (Agencies)
No. of respondents 3
Factor Was the factor a constraint If this factor was a on the participation of your constraint has there been organisation in partnership any change over the past activities 12 months? (if YES, delete those not (Delete as appropriate) applicable leaving one response) Own agency lacked enough staff Y Stayed the same resources Own agency lacked skills and N Stayed the same competencies Own agency lacked financial N Stayed the same resources Own agency couldn't fulfil or prioritise N Stayed the same time commitments Culture of own agency/body limited N Stayed the same commitment and enthusiasm 'Silos' of self interest within own N Stayed the same agency Fit between agency/body objectives Y Stayed the same and those of NDC Clarity of role Y Stayed the same Appropriateness or relevance of role No consensus NDC partnership/activities were N Stayed the same dominated by single partner/agency Complexity of relationships, task etc No consensus Demands from other partnership Y Increased structures e.g. LSPs
New Deal for Communities 59 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
TEMPLATE 5.3: Role of Organisation in NDC 'Partnership' Working (Agencies)
No. of respondents 3
Your Role Please delete responses that do not apply, leaving one response in the box. Membership of NDC Board or other bodies or Increased groups. Consultation and engagement with communities Increased and residents in NDC area. Monitoring and/or evaluation of NDC activities. Increased Collaboration on specific projects in NDC area Increased with other agencies. Co-ordination between projects of different No consensus agencies in NDC area. Links between NDC Partnership and your own Increased organisation. Links between different parts of your own Increased organisation on NDC matters. General networking (interactive flows of Same information, ideas, funds etc.).
TEMPLATE 5.4: Progress on Mainstreaming (Partnership Board, Programme Team, Agencies)
No. of respondents 9
Is the agency engaged in the NDC area in any of the following ways? NDC included in forward strategy? Mapping spend in the NDC area? on spend programme Main NDC activities funding project Joint Physical base or presence in area? Increased resources? of patterns Changed delivery LSP Y Y N N N N Y Police N N N N N Y Y PCT Y Y Y Y Y Y Y LSC N N N N N N N Job Centre N N N N N N N Plus SBS N N N N N N N LEA Y N N Y Y N N FE Y N N Y N N Y Soc. Services Y N N N N N N LA N N N N N N N Environment & Leisure LA Housing Y N N N Y Y N RSL Y N N N Y Y Y LA Regen Y Y N Y N Y Y Connexions N N N N N N N Leisure and N N N N N N N Youth Service Transport N N N Y Y N Y Authority
New Deal for Communities 60 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
SECTION 6: OVERVIEW OF ACHIEVEMENT
This section provides an overview of the achievements of the NDC, based on the evidence and discussions from previous sections.
Table 6.1: Overview
Theme Raising educational standards Key Issues The NDC has a higher than average proportion of young people but a marked lack of youth facilities and is an area with schools that have variable achievement rates. Adult skill rates are lower than average and the area has a large population whose first language is not English. Outputs The Community Schools Pupil Support project –placing teaching assistants and Community Development Workers in primary schools working with teachers and engaging parental support – has been underway for 18 months and is very popular with the schools and with parents. New services have been started – focussed on truancy and youth advocacy aimed at secondary school pupils, particularly Deptford Green. Mainstreaming The NDC is primarily funding supplementary services in the area’s schools. It has recognised that it has yet to establish a close collaboration with the post-16 educational institutions in the area or with the LSC and LEA that will concentrate additional mainstream services into the area. Intermediate Key stage 1 and 2 results have improved in primary schools although NDC funded outcomes activity will have played only one attributable part in their success.
Theme Improving health Key Issues Poor health conditions have been repeatedly identified during the NDC’s lifetime and in the most recent Health Impact Assessment. There is a serious shortage of GP, pharmacy, dental and optician services. Outputs ¾ Lifestyle Opportunities for Older People – personal safety help and a range of sports and leisure classes and activities. ¾ Complementary Health – providing classes and clinics in Osteopathy, reflexology and yoga; self defence classes ¾ Sports activities including an accredited football training programme and other after-school and holiday sports ¾ Lion project – sports activities primarily for disabled children – sponsored by Millwall FC ¾ Sexual health project developed and delivering referrals and advice
Mainstreaming Health Impact Assessment produced with the Primary Care Trust and Health Action Zone. Future joint commissioning of services between the NDC and PCT is likely. The PCT has identified New Cross Gate as an area requiring more intensive primary care services. Intermediate None identified outcomes
Theme Housing & the environment Key Issues Low satisfaction amongst residents in the area, poor provision of open space, effects of vandalism, anti-social behaviour and by graffiti. There is an acute shortage of suitable housing and the area has major problems caused by transport congestion and pollution. Outputs ¾ Environmental Infrastructre and Area Lighting programme has been completed ¾ Eckington Gardens park redevelopment started in early 2003 and has now been finished ¾ Street décor – hanging baskets and troughs at locations around the NDC area – undertaken in the Summer with an ambition to install all-year round
New Deal for Communities 61 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
planting ¾ Winslade recreational area improvements completed ¾ Besson Street Garden revitalised
Mainstreaming The Borough and Hyde Housing are the main suppliers of affordable housing. The Borough has contributed to revenue and maintenance costs of new street lighting and highways improvement. Local PSA agreement to reduce abandoned vehicles on streets and estates in the NDC area. Intermediate “Hard” environmental improvements completed. Better environment from less fly- outcomes tipping, abandoned vehicles – however, no quantifiable evidence yet. Transport feasibility study fully funded by TfL and the Borough has funded consultation on traffic calming measures.
Theme Community Safety Key Issues Overall crime levels in New Cross Gate are reported to have declined but remain high even by London standards. A majority of residents feel unsafe and a third have experienced some form of crime Outputs The Neighbourhood Wardens deterring crime and reducing fear of crime. Better street lighting has improved perceptions of security. Youth strategy reducing young people’s vulnerability to crime and increased diversionary activities to reduce crime and anti social behaviour by young people.
Mainstreaming Neighbourhood Wardens part-funded by the Borough and managed through the Borough Wardens Service. MPS has re-organised beat patrolling patterns.
Intermediate Some reduction in reported crime. outcomes
Theme Jobs and training Key Issues Low household income levels and low employment and economic activity rates. Many local residents failing to benefit from widespread regeneration and jobs growth in central London, elsewhere in Lewisham and Thames Gateway.
Outputs ¾ Childcare training project to support and train a network of existing and new childminders ¾ Opportunity Community – a project that has been substantially reviewed by the programme team. Although achieving a number of outputs – people advised, business starts, people into work – it lacked a high street presence and suffered from a lack of engagement with Jobcentre Plus. Matched with Equal funding, the project has also helped develop 4 social enterprises. ¾ Community Schools Pupil Support programme recruited 19 teaching assistants and 3 community workers from the locality
Mainstreaming Very limited engagement with Jobcentre Plus, the Connexions service, Learning & Skills Council or with Business Link for London
Intermediate Unemployment has declined in the area outcomes
New Deal for Communities 62 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
ANNEXE 2
Household Survey and Administrative Data
New Deal for Communities 63 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
PART 1: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
Headline indicators from the 2002 MORI/NOP Household Survey were provided for all Partnerships in their 2002/03 Reports. This Section now provides further analysis of a selection of Core Indicators from the 2002 survey by age bands (16-34, 35-44, 45-64 and 65+), gender, and where appropriate, ethnic group. (The exact list of indicators analysed is presented at the end of this Section)
When using these results it should be remembered that:
• Findings are only listed when there are differences of 10% or more between groups, or where results for a particular group are noticeably different. • Where the sample population/number of respondents is particularly small, findings have not been presented. These tables can be provided on request. • Findings are based on the views of a random sample of 500 households. • Figures have been rounded to the nearest %. • Only results for White and Black ethnic groups have been included when looking at the data by ethnicity. All other ethnic groups account for only 10% of the population in Lewisham. (The MORI Tables in the 2002/03 reports present details of all ethnic group responses).
Tables for all of the indicators listed at the back of this Section are available on request to CRESR either electronically or as hard copy. Please contact either Nicola Barraclough or Julie Manning if you would like copies of the tables at CRESR either by telephone (0114 2253539) or email [email protected] or [email protected].
HEADLINE DEMOGRAPHICS (Base: All respondents)
• 53% of all respondents are White and 36% are Black. • 40% of all respondents are male and 60% female. • 50% of all respondents are in paid employment. • 5% of respondents have applied for refugee status. • 17% of households have an income of less than £100 per week.
CRIME
How safe do you feel walking alone after dark? (Base: All respondents)
• 54% of respondents do not feel safe walking alone after dark. • A higher % of female respondents (64%) than male respondents (39%) do not feel safe walking alone. • The 65+ group has the highest % of respondents who do not feel safe walking alone (74%). This is 16 percentage points higher than any other age group. • 63% of White respondents do not feel safe walking alone compared with 39% of Black respondents.
New Deal for Communities 64 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Satisfaction with police (Base: All respondents)
• 53% of respondents are satisfied with the service provided by the police. • The 35-64 age group has the highest % of respondents who are satisfied with the police (61%). • 21% of White respondents are dissatisfied with the police compared with 14% of Black respondents.
Experience of crime - theft in home (Base: All respondents)
• 4% of respondents report experiencing theft from the home in the last 12 months. • Respondents under 65 are more likely to have experienced theft from the home (5% 16-34, 6% 35-44 and 4% 45-64) compared with the 65+ age group (1%).
Experience of crime - violence (Base: All respondents)
• 4% of respondents report experiencing violence in the last 12 months. • 6% of Black respondents compared with 2% of White respondents have experienced violence in the last 12 months.
EDUCATION
Skills - Reading, Writing and Numeracy (Base: All respondents)
• 14% of respondents think their reading skills need improving, 14% their writing skills and 25% their numeracy skills. • Black respondents are more likely to want to improve their reading (14%), writing (13%) and numeracy (32%) skills than White respondents (reading 11%, writing 12%, numeracy 19%). • The 65+ age group are the least likely to want to improve reading (6%), writing (4%) and numeracy (5%) skills. • 29% of female respondents want to improve numeracy skills compared with 18% of male respondents.
Currently taking part in education/training (Base: All except those in full time education)
• 79% of respondents have not taken part in education/training over the last 12 months. • The % of respondents not taking part in education increases with age. 74% of the 16-34 age group has not taken part in education or training over the last year compared with 96% of the 65+ age group.
Working age respondents with no qualifications (Base: All respondents; All working age)
• 21% of working age respondents have no qualifications. • The % of respondents within each age group with no qualifications increases with age. 13% of the 16-34 group have no qualifications compared with 39% of 45-64 age group. • A higher % of male respondents have no qualifications compared with female respondents (25% compared with 19%).
New Deal for Communities 65 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
HEALTH
Has your health been good over the last 12 months? (Base: All respondents)
• 19% of respondents do not have good health. • The % of respondents reporting their health to be not good increases with age. 6% of respondents from the 16-34 age groups do not have good health compared with 48% of respondents over 65.
How often on average do you eat 5 portions of fruit or vegetables a day? (Base: All respondents)
• 26% of respondents eat 5 portions of fruit or vegetables every day, 11% rarely/never eat 5 portions. • The two older age groups (45-64 and 65+) have a higher % of respondents who eat 5 portions of fruit or vegetables a day (35% and 30%) when compared with the two younger age groups (22% 16-34 and 23% 25-44). • 17% of male respondents rarely or never eat 5 portions of fruit or vegetables a day compared with 8% of female respondents.
Would you like to give up smoking altogether? (Base: All respondents who currently smoke cigarettes)
• 56% of respondents who smoke would like to give up. • 74% of respondents from the 16-34 age group would like to give up smoking all together. This is 26 percentage points higher than any other age group. • A higher % of female respondents (63%) would like to give up smoking than male respondents (50%). • White respondents are more likely to want to give up smoking than Black respondents (58% compared with 49%).
How satisfied are you with your doctor? (Base: All who have seen GP in last year)
• 83% of respondents are satisfied with their doctor. • Satisfaction with the doctor increases with age. 72% of respondents from the 16-34 age group are satisfied with their doctor, compared with 97% of respondents from the 65+ age group.
WORKLESSNESS (All respondents of working age)
• 7% of respondents are long-term sick/disabled. • In percentage terms, three times as many male than female respondents are long term sick/disabled (12% compared with 4%). • The 45-64 age group has the highest % of respondents who are long term sick/disabled (16%). The 16-34 age group has the lowest (1%). • 69% of respondents are economically active. • 77% of respondents from the 35-44 age group are economically active compared with 63% of the 16-34 age group and 70% of the 45-64 age group. • 58% of respondents are in employment. • A higher % of White respondents are in employment compared with Black respondents (64% compared with 51%).
New Deal for Communities 66 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
HOUSING AND THE AREA
Satisfaction with accommodation (Base: All respondents)
• 12% of respondents are dissatisfied with their accommodation. • The age group 45-64 has the highest % of respondents who are dissatisfied with their accommodation. At 17% this is 6 percentage points higher than any other age group. • 20% of Black respondents are dissatisfied with their accommodation compared with 5% of White respondents. • Female respondents are more likely than male respondents to be dissatisfied with their accommodation (15% compared with 8%).
Do you want to move from this property? (Base: All respondents)
• 44% of respondents want to move from their property. • 24% of 65+ age group want to move compared with 48% of respondents from the 16-34 age group. • Black respondents (54%) are more likely to want to move from the property compared with White respondents (39%).
Satisfaction with the Area (Base: All respondents)
• 58% of respondents are satisfied with the area as a place to live. • The age group 35-44 has the highest % of respondents (68%) who are satisfied with the area, while the 65+ age group has the lowest (51%). • Black respondents are more likely to be satisfied with the area (73%) compared with White respondents (48%). • 64% of male respondents are satisfied with the area compared with 55% of female respondents.
Change in Area (Base: All who have lived in area 2 or more years)
• 24% of respondents think the area has got better, 32% think it has got worse. • Male respondents are more likely than female respondents to think the area has got better over the last two years (35% compared with 17%). • 45% of respondents from the 45-64 age group think the area has got worse over the last two years. This is 9 percentage points higher than any other age group. • 42% of White respondents think the area has got worse compared with 19% of Black respondents.
New Deal for Communities 67 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
COMMUNITY
Do you feel Part of the Community? (Base: All respondents)
• 65% of respondents do not feel part of the community. • A higher % of White respondents (70%) do not feel part of the community compared with Black respondents (59%).
Do you feel you can influence decisions that affect your area? (Base: All respondents)
• 26% of respondents feel they can influence decisions in the area. • 38% of Black respondents feel they can influence decisions in the area compared with 18% of White respondents.
Overall, would you say this is a good or bad area to bring up children? (Base: All respondents)
• 41% of respondents think this is a good area to bring up children. • Black respondents are more likely to think the area is a good place to bring up children – at 58% this is 27 percentage points higher than White respondents. • The age group 65+ has the highest % of respondents who think this is a good area to bring up children (54%), while the 16-34 age group has the lowest % (32%).
New Deal for Communities 68 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Household Survey: Core Indicators Analysed
Household Demographics % BME population Ever applied for refugee status % of respondents in paid work Income below £100 per week (households) % of male and female respondents
Crime and Safety Feel very unsafe outside alone after dark Very/fairly satisfied with police Experienced burglary/attempted burglary in last 12 months Experienced assault in last 12 months
Education and Training No qualifications – working age respondents Very/fairly satisfied with primary schools Very/fairly satisfied with secondary schools Taken part in education/training in last year (excluding current students) Percentage feel need to improve reading Percentage feel need to improve writing Percentage feel need to improve numeracy
Worklessness (respondents of working age) In paid work Long-term sick/disabled Unemployed Economically active and/or inactive
Health Is health good Fruit and vegetable consumption Would you like to give up smoking Satisfaction with GP
Housing and the Area Very/fairly satisfied with accommodation Very/fairly satisfied with area as a place to live Want to move out of home Area much/slightly worse/better than 2 years ago
Community and the NDC Feel part of local community Feel can influence decisions in area Feel NDC has improved area Feel it is a good area to bring up children
New Deal for Communities 69 London: Lewisham 1 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
PART 2: ADMINISTRATIVE DATA Summary of Key Findings
In the New Cross Gate NDC Area there are approximately 8,300 people in the total population, made up of 5,275 people of working age, 1125 older people and 1905 children aged under 16.1
• In 2002, the proportion of workless adults in the New Cross Gate NDC Area was 16.8%. This represents 7.5% claiming Job Seeker’s Allowance and 8.5% claiming out of work illness-related benefits. This represents an increase of 6.5% in the actual numbers of workless adults from 2001. • In 2002 the estimated proportion of the population suffering from mental illness in the New Cross Gate NDC Area was 3.8%. • In 2002 the proportion of pupils having 5 or more GCSEs with grades A*-C in New Cross Gate NDC Area was 35.8%. • In 2002 the proportion of children staying in school beyond the age of 16 in the New Cross Gate NDC Area was 57.5%, showing an increase of 5.6% from 2001. • In 2001, approximately 38.5% of homes in New Cross Gate NDC Area fell below the Decent Standard.
1 All population figures are estimates and have been rounded to the nearest five.
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 2 70 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Section 1: Worklessness
Key Findings
• In 2002, the proportion of workless adults in the New Cross Gate NDC Area was 16.8%. This represents 7.5% claiming Job Seeker’s Allowance and 8.5% claiming out of work illness-related benefits. This represents an increase of 6.5% in the actual numbers of workless adults from 2001. • In 2002 the proportion of people aged 18-59 on New Deal for Young People (NDYP) or New Deal 25(ND25) schemes in New Cross Gate NDC Area was 0.2%, showing a decrease of 52.9% in the actual numbers of people on NDYP and ND25 schemes. • In 2002 the proportion of working age adults on New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) training schemes in New Cross Gate NDC Area was 0.7%, showing an increase of 66.7% in the actual numbers of people on NDLP training schemes.
Full Findings
This section looks at those people who are known to be involuntarily out of work.
In April 2001, 15.8% of working age adults in the New Cross Gate NDC Area were claiming JSA (either Income or Contribution Based) or IB or SDA.2 In April 2002, the proportion of workless adults was 16.8%. This represents an increase of 6.5% in the actual numbers of workless adults from 2001. In April 2002 the proportion of workless adults in the district was 11.6%, in the region it was 9.6%, and in England as a whole it was 9.4%. Chart 1a shows the rate of worklessness in the New Cross Gate NDC Area, Lewisham, the region and England from 1999 to 20023.
2 All percentage figures have been rounded to one decimal place. 3 Data for 2000 have not been included in this analysis.
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 2 71 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Chart 1a: Rate of worklessness for the New Cross Gate NDC Area, Lewisham, region and England 1999 to 2002
20
18
16
14
12 New Cross Gate NDC Area Lewisham 10 London Region England 8 Worklessness rate (%)
6
4
2
0 1999 2001 2002
Looking at the individual indicators we can see that, in April 2001, 6.6% of working age adults in New Cross Gate NDC Area were claiming JSA. In April 2002, the proportion of working age adults claiming JSA was 7.5%, an increase of 0.9% over the period. This represents an increase of 14.2% in the actual numbers of people claiming JSA. In addition, in April 2001, 8.5% of working age adults in New Cross Gate NDC Area were claiming IB or SDA. In April 2002, the proportion of working age adults claiming IB or SDA was 8.5%, a decrease of 0.0% over the period. This represents no change % in the actual numbers of people claiming IB or SDA.
Chart 1b shows the rate of JSA and IB/SDA claims in the New Cross Gate NDC Area, Lewisham, the region and England from 1999 to 2000
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 2 72 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 2 73 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Chart 1b: Rate of JSA and IB/SDA claims for the New Cross Gate NDC Area, Lewisham, region and England 1999 to 2002
10
9
8
7
6 IB/SDA 1999 IB/SDA 2002 5 JSA 1999 JSA 2002 4 Percentage of adults (16-59) 3
2
1
0 New Cross Gate NDC Area Lewisham London Region England
By linking claimant records from 1999 and 2002 together, the movements of individual claimants over time can be analysed. This is true whether the movements are geographical or between different benefit statuses. Table 1 considers all those who were claiming JSA or IB/SDA in 1999, tracking their movements to 2002. It is important to note that the analysis only considers the status of claimants in 1999 and 2002. In other words, it takes account only of the status of claimants at these two time points and not in, for example, 2001.
Table 1: Destinations of workless adults
1999 Remaining Remaining Moving Moving Becoming Leaving Leaving Location unemployed ill from JSA from age 60+ benefits area to IB/SDA IB/SDA to JSA New 12.5% 28.2% 2.9% 0.6% 6.6% 34.3% 14.9% Cross Gate NDC Area Lewisham 13.9% 30.4% 3.9% 0.9% 6.6% 36.5% 7.8% Region 11.4% 36.9% 4.5% 1.0% 7.0% 35.7% 3.4% England 8.8% 45.1% 4.4% 1.0% 8.2% 31.7% 0.8%
As shown in Table 1, in New Cross Gate NDC Area the majority of those people who were workless in 1999 were still workless in 2002. In Lewisham the majority of residents who were workless in 1999 were still workless in 2002.
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 2 74 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Of those people in New Cross Gate NDC Area who were workless in 1999, 44.1% were still workless in 2002. This compares with 49.1% in Lewisham, 53.9% in the region, and 59.3% in England.
Of those people in New Cross Gate NDC Area who were claiming JSA in 1999, 12.5% were still claiming JSA in 2002. This compares with 13.9% in Lewisham, 11.4% in the region, and 0.8% in England.
Of those people in New Cross Gate NDC Area who were claiming either IB or SDA in 1999, 28.2% were still claiming IB or SDA in 2002. This compares with 30.4% for Lewisham, 36.9% for the region, and 45.1% for England.
Of those people in New Cross Gate NDC Area who were workless in 1999, 14.9% had left the area, but were still claiming out-of-work benefits by 2002.
In April 2001, 0.3% people aged 18-59 in the New Cross Gate NDC Area were on New Deal for Young People (NDYP) or New Deal 25 (ND25) schemes. In April 2002, the proportion of 18-59 year olds on these New Deal schemes was 0.2%, representing a decrease of 52.9% in the actual numbers of people on NDYP and ND25. In April 2002 the proportion of people aged 18-59 on NDYP and ND25 schemes in the district was 0.1%, in the region it was 0.1%, and in England as a whole it was 0.1%.
In April 2001, 0.4% of working age adults in the New Cross Gate NDC Area were on New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) training schemes. In April 2002, the proportion of working age adults on NDLP training schemes was 0.7%, which is equivalent to an increase of 66.7% in the actual numbers of working age adults on NDLP. In April 2002 the proportion of working age adults on NDLP training schemes in the district was 0.7%, in the region it was 0.5%, and in England as a whole it was 0.4%.
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 2 75 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Section 2: Educational Attainment
Key Findings:
• In 2002, the proportion of pupils reaching Level 4 in English at Key Stage 2 in New Cross Gate NDC Area was 62.1%. • In 2002 the proportion of pupils having 5 or more GCSEs with grades A*-C in New Cross Gate NDC Area was 35.8%. • In 2002 the proportion of children staying in school beyond the age of 16 in the New Cross Gate NDC Area was 57.5% showing an increase of 5.6% from 2001.
Full Findings:
Key Stage 2 results
This report presents the proportion of pupils reaching Level 4 at KS2. This reflects progress towards the national target that all local education authorities will have at least 78% of their 11 year olds at Level 4 or above in English and mathematics by 2004.
When analysing these data it is important to bear in mind that due to the small number of pupils in a small area taking KS2 exams in any one year, fluctuation from one year to another is highly likely. While the scores for 2002 are a good starting point, conclusions about the progress of schools and pupils in the NDC area should not be drawn until data are available across a number of years.
In 2002, the proportion of all pupils in New Cross Gate NDC Area reaching Level 4 in English was 62.1%. The proportion of pupils not attending special schools reaching this level was 62.1%. The proportion of all pupils reaching Level 4 in maths was 64.3%, while the proportion of those pupils not attending special schools reaching Level 4 was 64.3%. Chart 2a shows the proportion of KS2 exams taken by students not in special schools reaching Level 4 in 2002 in English and maths in the New Cross Gate NDC Area, Lewisham, the region and England.
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 2 76 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 2 77 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Chart 2a: The proportion of KS2 exams reaching Level 4 in New Cross Gate NDC Area in 2002
90
80
70
60
50 English Maths 78% Target 40 Percentage of pupils of Percentage
30
20
10
0 New Cross Gate NDC Area Lewisham London Region England
GSCEs
Approximately 96% of all pupils in the final compulsory year at maintained schools took one or more GCSE/GNVQs in summer 2002. The results can be presented in many different ways, two of which are presented here. The first standard measure is the proportion reaching the threshold of 5+ GCSE/GNVQ graded A*-C. It is also possible to present the data in terms of a GCSE/GNVQ points score. This can be capped at the best of eight subjects to produce a standard measure. This measure takes account of the full range of scores for all pupils, and this may be more sensitive to changes over time.
Unlike KS2, pupils in maintained schools are not required to take GCSE/GNVQ. The performance records do not therefore include information about this non-taking group. They have to be inferred from the data on the complete cohort in the school system in January 2002. When this group is included, the proportion apparently not taking any GCSE/GNVQ increases slightly to more than 5%. The reasons for the difference are not clear at this stage, but of course some pupils in the schools in January 2002 may have left school or the country by June 2002. Due to the differences in the denominator (the total number of students), the results presented here may not be in exact accord with the figures published at school or district or LEA level, though the differences are usually slight.
In 2002, the average GCSE/GNVQ score of pupils in New Cross Gate NDC Area was 29.6. The average score for pupils not attending special schools was 29.6. This compares with an average score of 31.5 in Lewisham, 33.9 in the region, and 34.3 in England as a whole.
In 2002, the proportion of all pupils in New Cross Gate NDC Area achieving five or more GCSEs with grades A*-C was 35.8%. The proportion of those pupils not attending special
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 2 78 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership schools achieving five or more GCSEs with grades C or better was 35.8%. Map 1 shows the proportion of pupils not at special schools achieving five or more GCSEs with grades A* - C in the New Cross Gate NDC Area and all wards in the district. All wards in England have been divided into deciles (ten equal groups) according to their proportions of students achieving these GCSE results in 2002. The ‘cut points’ of the deciles show the range of the proportions for each decile of wards. The NDC area and wards in Map 1 have been shaded according to the decile in which they fall, with the wards with the smallest proportion of students achieving five or more GCSEs at A* - C level being shaded dark blue. This shows how the NDC area and wards in the district compare with all wards in England in 2002.
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 2 79 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 2 80 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Young people staying in school beyond the compulsory stage
The staying on rate is measured using Child Benefit data. Child Benefit is payable for all dependent children in full time non-advanced education up to the age of 19. Parents no longer receive child benefit for any child who leaves full time education once the compulsory stage has ended. There is a very high take-up rate of Child Benefit, which makes it a particularly robust indicator. The method used compares the total number of children receiving Child Benefit at the end of the compulsory stage with that for the post compulsory period (aged over 16).
In April 2001 the proportion of the pupils in the New Cross Gate NDC Area staying in school past the age of compulsory education was 51.9%. In April 2002 the proportion of the children in the New Cross Gate NDC Area staying in school past the age of compulsory education was 57.5%, showing an increase of 5.6%. In April 2002 the proportion of the children staying in school past the age of compulsory education in the district was 58.0%, in the region it was 62.8%, and in England as a whole it was 56.3%. Chart 2b shows the proportion of the children staying in school past the age of compulsory education in 2001 and 2002 in New Cross Gate NDC Area, Lewisham, the region and England.
Chart 2b: Proportions of children staying in school past the age of compulsory education in the New Cross Gate NDC Area in 2001 and 2002
70
60
50
40
2001 2002
30
Percentage of young people (16-18) young people of Percentage 20
10
0 New Cross Gate NDC Area Lewisham London Region England
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 2 81 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Section 3: Health
Key Findings
• In the New Cross Gate NDC Area, 7.8% of children born between 1997 and 2001 had low birth weights, showing a decreasing rate of low birth weight from 1996 to 2000. This represents a decrease of 9.3% in the actual numbers of children born with low birth weights. • In 2002 the estimated proportion of the population suffering from mental illness in the New Cross Gate NDC Area was 3.8%. • In 2002, the New Cross Gate NDC Area had a Comparative Illness Figure (CIF) of 135.4, where the expected figure, given the sex and age structure of the area would be 100. • Between 1999 and 2002, the Comparative Drug Misuse Figure for the New Cross Gate NDC Area was 119.8, where the expected figure, given the sex and age structure of the area would be 100.
Full Findings:
This section gives an overview of the health of the population of the New Cross Gate NDC Area through a variety of measures. Health can be considered in several ways, for example: the absence of illness, positive well being, and longevity. Poor health has long been examined using measures of mortality or the incidence of disease. However, other indicators of poor health are now available, including measures of chronic illness and disability, at the small area level.
This section starts by looking at measures of health status at the beginning of life, moves on to health and disability throughout life and concludes with an examination of age and cause of death.
Low birth weight
In the New Cross Gate NDC Area, 8.6% of children born between 1996 and 2000 had low birth weights. Between 1997 and 2001, 7.8 % of the children born had low birth weights, a decreasing rate of low birth weight 0.8% from 1996 to 2000. This represents a decrease of 9.3% in the actual numbers of children born with low birth weights. The proportion of children born with low birth weights between 1997 and 2001 was 7.8% in the district, 7% in the region, and 6.1% in England as a whole.
Mental health
In April 2001, 3.3% of the people in the New Cross Gate NDC Area were estimated to be suffering from depression or anxiety, while 0.4% were estimated to be suffering from psychoses. Overall, 3.7 % of people were estimated to be suffering from mental illnesses. In April 2002, 3.5% of people were estimated to be suffering from depression or anxiety, while 0.4% were estimated to be suffering from psychosis. Overall 3.8% of people were estimated to be suffering from mental illness in 2002, an increase of 0.2% from 2001. This represents an increase of 4.1% in the actual numbers of people suffering from mental illness. In April
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 2 82 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
2002 the proportion of people suffering from mental illness in the district was 3.8%, in the region it was 3.7%, and in England as a whole it was 5.5%.
Illness and benefits
In 2001, the Comparative Illness Figure for the New Cross Gate NDC Area was 136.1. This represents a higher number of people suffering from illnesses or disability that would be expected given the sex and age structure of an area. In 2002, the CIF was 135.4, a decrease of 0.5 from 2001.
Hospital Admission Data
More detail on the specific causes of ill-heath in an area can be provided by looking at the reasons why people are admitted into hospital. As with general measures of illness the impact of the age structure of an area has to be taken into account when comparing incidence of hospital admissions. This will be performed by using an age standardised measure of hospital admissions, in this case the Comparative Drug Misuse Figure (CDMF), the Comparative Alcohol Misuse Figure (CAMF), the Comparative Hospital Admissions for Cancer Figure (CCAF) and the Comparative Hospital Admissions for Heart Disease Figure (CHAF). If each of these figures for an area is the level expected given the age and sex structure of the area, it has a value of 100. A value greater than 100 indicates a higher level of hospital admission than expected. These figures are calculated using data over a four year period. Combining this number of years is necessary in order to avoid rendering the figures unreliable due to small population at risk in any one year.
Between 1999 and 2001, the CDMF for the New Cross Gate NDC Area was 119.8. This is a greater number of people being admitted into hospital for drug misuse than would be expected given the sex and age structure of an area.
Between 1999 and 2001, the CAMF for the New Cross Gate NDC Area was 166.7. This is a greater number of people being admitted into hospital for alcohol misuse than would be expected.
The CCAF for the period from 1999 to 2001 for the New Cross Gate NDC Area was 106.8. This is a greater number of people being admitted into hospital for cancer impatient care than would be expected given the sex and age structure of an area.
Between 1999 and 2001, the CHAF for the New Cross Gate NDC Area was 104.6. This is a greater number of people being admitted into hospital suffering from Heart Disease than would be expected given the sex and age structure of an area.
Chart 3a shows the comparative figures discussed above for New Cross Gate NDC Area, with the figure for England (the expected average) also presented.
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 2 83 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Chart 3a Comparative Hospital Admissions Figures for New Cross Gate NDC Area, 1999 to 2002
180.00
160.00
140.00
120.00
100.00 New Cross Gate NDC Area England average 80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00 Drugs misuse Alcohol misuse Cancer Heart disease
Mortality in the New Cross Gate NDC Area
As with measures of ill health and disability, when exploring whether the number of deaths in an area is higher or lower than expected, it is important to take the age structure of the area into account. The age structure of an area can be accounted for by using an age standardised measure of mortality, in this case the Comparative Mortality Figure (CMF). The CMF is calculated for the under 75 population using data over a four year period. Combining this number of years is necessary in order to avoid rendering the CMF unreliable due to small population at risk of death in any one year.
For the period 1997 to 2000, the CMF in New Cross Gate NDC Area was 167.7. This is a greater number of deaths that would be expected given the area’s age structure. For the 1997 to 2001 period, the CMF was 165.4, a decrease of 1.4% over the period.
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 2 84 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Section 4: Physical Environment
Key Findings
• In 2002, the average flat in New Cross Gate NDC Area sold for £113996. • In 2001, approximately 38.5% of homes in New Cross Gate NDC Area fell below the Decent Standard.
Full Findings
House Prices
Average house prices were calculated by house types for the houses sold.4 In 2002 the average price in New Cross Gate NDC Area was £113996 for flats, £169014 for terraced houses, and £177623 for semi-detached houses. Chart 4a shows the average house prices in 2001 for the four major types of homes in the New Cross Gate NDC Area, Lewisham, the region and England.
Chart 4a: Average house prices in New Cross Gate NDC Area in 2002
500,000 2001 450,000 2002
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
d t d d d t d e e ed Flat Fla ced Flat Fla che ched che ta a rra rrace ta rrac e e etach e etach e e Terraced D T D T D T mi-Det mi-D Semi-Detached Se Semi-Detached Se New Cross Gate NDC Area Lewisham London Region England
4 In areas where three or fewer dwellings were sold, the data is not presented.
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 2 85 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Housing Quality
The Building Research Establishment (BRE) has used the 2001 English House Condition Survey to produce a model of dwellings that fall below the Decent Standard, which are those dwellings that are not warm, wind and weather tight, and do not have modern facilities.5
In 2002, approximately 38.5% of homes in New Cross Gate NDC Area fell below the Decent Standard. Chart 4b shows the rate of Decent Standard failure in 2001 in the New Cross Gate NDC Area, Lewisham, the region and England.
Chart 4b: Housing falling below the Decent Standard in New Cross Gate NDC Area in 2001
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31 New Cross Gate NDC Area Lewisham London Region England
5 For more information on the Decent Standard, please see A Decent Home: The revised definition and guidance for implementation, DTLR London 2002, also available at: http://www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/information/dhg/definition/index.htm
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 2 86 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
ANNEXE 3
Focus Group Report
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 3 87 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
NDC National Evaluation 2003-2004
Focus Group: Older Residents of New Cross Gate at the White House.
A focus group was held in November 2003 with older residents of New Cross Gate and primarily residents of the White House. The White House is a block of residential flats which, although there is no resident warden, provides semi-sheltered living for elderly men and women. The White House has been re-furbished as part of the Lewisham Housing Improvement Scheme in the Kender Triangle. Residents of the White House were invited to attend the focus group held in the communal area in the White House by the Development Worker at the NDC.
Nine women aged between 65 and 95 attended the focus group. All were white. The session was delivered by 2 SQW staff.
Participation by the residents during the focus group was good and the discussion was open and informative, all of those attending took the opportunity to take part in the discussion at some point. The main area for concern highlighted by the residents was that of crime both in terms of fear of crime and real experience. Many of the residents had been victims of muggings and theft and a couple of days previous to the visit the White House had been broken into by young men whilst residents were sat in the lounge in the evening. The young men had shouted and stolen money that residents were using for a card game, this amounted to a few pounds at most but the whole experience was clearly very distressing.
The residents were asked questions around the following themes:
• How people view the area – those that live in the area and those outside the area. • Whether or not they have been involved in or benefited from any NDC funded projects. • Improvements they would like to see in the area. • What changes either positive or negative they have seen in the area. • Key messages they would like to send back to the NDC.
Below we outline in more detail the feedback we got from the residents in each of the topic areas described above: How people view the New Cross Gate area?
The residents felt that the local area was poor in terms shops and facilities and were particularly aggrieved at the fact that there is no longer a greengrocers, butchers or bakers on the high street as there once was. Residents are provided with a shopping bus once a week which takes them to Lewisham but noted that there used to be a bus running through Kender to the shops which no longer runs.
Other key areas of concern to the residents were: • Dirt • Graffiti • Abandoned vehicles • Rubbish on the streets • High levels of traffic and increasing levels of crime
Crime is a particular area of concern to the residents especially personal crime, one of the ladies (over 85 years old) attending the session has been mugged four times in the local area. The residents noted concern that they did not feel safe within the White House
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 3 88 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Building as one of the residents had been mugged on the doorstep and had had her keys taken with her handbag including those for the main front door.
The residents felt that people from outside the area view New Cross Gate as a place they are glad they don’t live in and commented that generally there is no reason for people who live outside the area to come to New Cross Gate.
Involvement in New Cross Gate funded projects?
When initially questioned about what NDC projects they had heard about or had been involved in the residents struggled to identify any. However after suggesting the names of a number of projects the residents did feel able to comment on some of the activities of the NDC.
The residents were frustrated that they had not had much contact from the Neighbourhood Wardens and stated that they had not seen them at the White House and were clearly disappointed that the residents had not visited following the recent break-in. One resident noted that she had contacted the wardens regarding some offensive graffiti but that it had not been cleared.
The residents felt that the Street Lighting Improvement Programme was very good and had made the area much better although the pavements were still very bad and dangerous particularly for the elderly.
The residents also noted that the Kender Primary School is very good and that a History Trail activity led by the NDC Development Worker with Children at the school which involved children talking to the older residents was very good. A number of the residents attending the session now attend a regular history group which meets once a month at the White House.
The Eckington Gardens refurbishment was also mentioned as the residents knew that it was happening but none had seen the work so far as the gardens have yet to be opened.
The residents noted that they did not feel that the NDC involves them in consultation processes and recalled the positive messages at the outset of the NDC programme which they have failed to see materialise. There appeared to be significant apathy amongst the group with regard to the NDC as it was something they heard a lot about in the early days but less so now. The rate of staff turnover at the NDC was also noted and was viewed as wasteful as was the food and provisions at meetings. However it was also noted that recently they have been receiving more information and that the newsletter is good.
Overall the group noted that they felt that the NDC had had some impact on the area in terms of: o Improving street lighting o Removing abandoned vehicles o Refurbishment of Eckington Gardens
Improvements they would like to see in the area?
The group discussed possible improvements they would like to see in the area under a number of sub themes:
• Crime & Safety • Education
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 3 89 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
• Jobs & Training • Housing, Community Facilities & Shopping • Transport, Environment & Other
Some issues were clearly more important to the residents than others indeed they did not feel able to comment significantly on issues of education and jobs and training as none of the residents had children or grandchildren attending local schools nor did they have working age family in the area.
Crime & Safety
The residents felt that they would like to see more police and street wardens and noted that there seems to be a focus of these resources on youth but that the older community would also like to have more interaction and support from both the police and the Neighbourhood Wardens.
Once again the issues of abandoned cars and graffiti were raised with particular concern that even offensive language is not cleared up.
Housing, Community Facilities & Shopping
The residents commented that they were very satisfied with their local GPs who offer good surgeries and clinics. When questioned about their thoughts on the proposed Healthy Living Centre the residents recognised the term and said that it was something that was talked about a lot four or five years ago but that they didn’t know much about it now.
All of those attending the session felt that there should be a resident warden in the White House and that this provision was removed a number of years ago. All residents felt that those in the White House would be and feel safer if a resident warden was reinstated.
With regard to community facilities those attending felt that there was very little provision in the New Cross Gate area. In particular there is no place that they can go to socialise and said that a tea room would be nice as the existing cafes are grotty. The public toilets were refurbished by Magpie a couple of years ago but they are now permanently closed as if they are opened they are used by drug dealers and addicts.
A number of those at the session attend bingo sessions at All Saints Church and noted that LOOP (Lifestyle Opportunities for Older People) also use the Church. All agreed that money should be given to the church for refurbishment as they feel it is the main community facility in the area.
The ladies also recalled day trips which used to be run by 170 Community project and said that they would like to have them reintroduced.
Whilst the residents identified the All Saints Church and the 170 Community Project as providing some community facilities they felt that the area needs a proper community meeting place which offers facilities and activities for all.
Transport, Environment & Other
The residents would like to see the bus services improved so that they can have more independence and be able to visit the shops more frequently than the once a week bus allows.
In terms of the local environment the residents highlighted the condition of the pavements and general cleanliness of the area to be of particular concern and note that they asked for
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 3 90 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership trees and street planting a long time ago but have not seen any implementation of such improvements.
With regard to increasing their involvement with the NDC itself the residents stated that they would like to attend meetings and would do so if they could get to them and if they were held in the daytime as they are not happy about being out after dark.
What has changed in New Cross Gate?
The group was asked to consider how they think that the New Cross Gate area has changed in the last 12 months.
The primary positive changes identified by the group were the improvements to the housing, the group noted that the properties look much better and that people are generally much happier with where they live despite some of the interim upheaval.
The group felt that the area has become more violent and stated that they are more fearful about being out particularly in the evening. It was also felt that the local streets remain dirty and rubbish strewn.
Finally the group noted that in the past 12 months they thought that there are more people in the area from ethnic minorities primarily Asians, Afghanistan’s and Nigerians. The group openly noted that their concerns about this are largely because they are not used to people from these parts of the world but also that language can be a huge barrier. They also felt that what they viewed as the increasing presence of ethnic minorities can cause tensions as “you read about the money you get and it makes you think”.
Key messages for the NDC
Those attending the session highlighted the fact that they felt that they did not know what was happening at the NDC and what was being funded. Before they could consider involvement they wanted to see how much has been spent so far and what it has been spent on.
It was also requested that more information be provided about who’s who at the NDC and more information about what they are doing and what they are responsible for.
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 3 91
ANNEXE 4
Value for Money Case Study
New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Evaluation of Case Study Projects
Project Name Environmental Infrastructure and Are Lighting Programme Project Manager Bob Quatresols (LBL), Bayo Kelekun (NDC) Organisation London Borough of Lewisham Tel No: [email protected] Address: London Borough of Lewisham Town Hall Catford London SE6 4RU
General Description of project: This project sought to undertake environmental infrastructure lighting works throughout the NDC area. The project delivered a range of environmental enhancements including lighting upgrading, pavements upgrades and where necessary upgrading to the carriageways in the NDC area. The project delivered upgrades to secondary borough roads (not the A2 where works have recently been undertaken by TfL).
Characteristics of the area:
The improvements proposed by the project were to be implemented on streets in the NDC area which were lit by old yellow lighting columns and whose paving, gullies and road surfaces were in need of repair. The project proposed to replace existing lighting with white light and new lamp columns and to conduct gully inspections and repairs, pavement repairs and road repairs. The project sought to reduce fear of crime and incidence of crime through improvements to the streetscape of the area. The roads chosen for surfacing and footway works are as a result of site visual inspections by highway inspectors. LBL has a priority list of 500 roads that life expired. With the exception of one road, roads in the NDC were unlikely to be resurfaced within the next five years at the current rate of funding. A street lighting survey in the area confirmed that the majority of street lighting was old and substandard. The project proposed to bring the lighting up to standard. Complaints to the council over the year preceding submission of the appraisal document highlighted the need for the gullies to be inspected, sanitised, cleared and if needed repaired. Evidence base used:
A range of evidence sources were used in submission of the appraisal including inspections and surveys conducted by LBL and surveys and consultations conducted by the NDC.
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 4 Page 93 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Origin of the project: The poor environment of the NDC area was identified as an issue in the 2000-2001 delivery plan and highlighted in subsequent consultations around the environment and crime themes in 2002. The major issues identified included: • Fear of crime • Increased incidents of crime • Perceptions of a poor environment • Lack of inward investment • Declining business sector • Decreased community involvement The appraisal document cites a report “ Effects of Improved Street Lighting on Crime: a Systematic Review”, which finds that improvements in street lighting offers a cost effective crime reduction measure and is an important element of crime reduction.
Consultation in devising project: During the development of the 10 Year Delivery Plan a series of theme groups were held to define and shape priorities for the NDC. A perception survey conducted in March 2001 found that when asked what environmental improvements respondents would most like to see 31% (708 respondents) stated improvements to street lighting and 20% stated repairs to pavements, walkways and roads. The neighbourhood warden consultation events held between May and August 2002 revisited some of the issues raised in the perceptions survey. The perception survey found that: - 41% of respondents said they felt unsafe in the neighbourhood - 38% of people reported experiencing one crime - 60% identified improved lighting as a key safety measure - 20% of people stated that they were dissatisfied with the environment - 36% of respondents stated that New Cross Gate had deteriorated in terms of crime and environment in the preceding three years. The neighbourhood warden’s consultation events confirmed that the fear of crime was still a major issue in the New Cross Gate area along with a perception that the overall environment was continuing to decline. Role of other agencies: The London Borough of Lewisham is responsible for the roads in the area except the A2 which is now the responsibility of TfL. The London Borough of Lewisham have conducted a “healthcheck” on all roads in Lewisham and although some roads within the NDC area were in a state of disrepair they would not have been LBL priority for the next five years. LBL drew up the proposal and delivered the works on behalf of the NDC. The proposal used standard council costings with standard LBL contractors and was therefore an easy proposal to develop.
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 4 Page 94 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Area problems addressed by project: The project sought to reduce the perceived and real fear of crime in the area through upgrading poor and structurally unsafe lighting columns and upgrading pavements and roads where needed. The roads chosen for surfacing and footway works are as a result of site visual inspections by highway inspectors. LBL has a priority list of 500 roads that life expired. With the exception of one road, roads in the NDC were unlikely to be resurfaced within the next five years at the current rate of funding. A street lighting survey in the area confirmed that the majority of street lighting was old and substandard. The project proposed to bring the lighting up to standard. Complaints to the council over the year preceding submission of the appraisal document highlighted the need for the gullies to be inspected, sanitised, cleared and if needed repaired.
Baseline information relating to these problems
A range of evidence sources were used in submission of the appraisal including inspections and surveys conducted by LBL and surveys and consultations conducted by the NDC.
Aims and Objectives of the project Aims: To reduce fear of crime and real crime and improve the environment of New Cross Gate. Objectives: Redesign lighting and replace with white light which provides adequate lighting levels. Upgrade paving and roads and generally improve the streetscape.
Are there any specific BME related aspects of this project The project was of benefit to all members of the community.
Cross-cutting objectives of the project The project addresses fear of crime and prevention of real crime through improving the street environment within the area.
[IF PROJECT WAS PLANNED PRIOR TO NDC] Was the project modified by being part of an NDC scheme? Yes No 9 (If no go to Q10) [IF YES] Describe how it was altered
Prior to NDC, what were the intended sources of funding for the project or had no funding been arranged?
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 4 Page 95 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
How has the project developed since its inception? (i.e. Has it changed emphasis/developed new services, sought new client groups etc.) Please explore why any changes have been made and what they are).
Phase 2 of the project has been introduced which will seek to upgrade the lighting and paving on the estates in the area (estates were not covered by the original project). Following consultation some modifications were made to the lighting which would be used in part of the area
Have there been any problems in implementing the project (e.g. resources, inter- agency working etc)? How have these been overcome?
There have not been any real issues in the delivery of the project. The NDC feels that the council expertise and in kind support which was provided has been invaluable in the smooth delivery of the improvements. The contractors are well known to the council so any issues were easily dealt with.
Summary of key project dates (showing nearest month and year) Date project planning Date NDC funding Date of project Date project due to started approved/given go ahead launch/activity start finish November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 March 2003
What aspects of this project (if any) are innovative or contribute to best practice? Innovative aspects:
Contribution to best practice The key best practice element of the project appears to be the use of existing council contractors and the in-kind support offered by the council who acted as contract manager and co-ordinator. The council has systems in place for co- ordinating works and informing local residents about disruption. In addition the council has links with TfL, emergency services and the traffic police so that works can be fully co-ordinated.
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 4 Page 96 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Funding
What is the total funding for this project? Please give actual expenditure to date and total expenditure forecast. £000s Actual to date Total expenditure (forecast) Source of funding: NDC Capital £1.16million £1.16million NDC Revenue Other public; mainstream Other public: special allocation Other public: in kind Private funding Private: in kind Other funding Other: in kind Total £1.16 million £1.16million
What have been the main sources of funding (e.g. local authority, health authority, Learning & Skills Council, police etc) and how much have each contributed? (Please indicate in columns below the financial contribution (fin) and in-kind (ik) financial equivalent where relevant) In kind contributions were not measured. Other public Private sector Public body fin (£) ik (£) Companies fin (£) ik (£)
Total public sector Total private sector
Has the level of funding attracted by the project changed from what was originally intended? If so how? (eg reduced/increased scale/quality, private sector funds attracted) Yes No 9 If yes, please explain how it changed and why
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 4 Page 97 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
What was the NDC funding intended for? (ie. staff costs, equipment, land clearance, building work, etc...)
Capital costs for Improvements to lighting and paving in order to reduce perceived and real fear of crime.
Management of Project
How is the project being delivered? What is the management structure in place? (ie through LA dept, working group, committee)?
The project was delivered and managed by the London Borough of Lewisham Highways, Street Lighting and Structures Team and their contractors. Bob Quatresols the Service Group Manager at LBL was the project champion responsible for co-ordination of contractors and delivery. Bayo Kelekun took the lead at the NDC.
What partners are involved with the project and what are their roles
LBL was the only partner but implementation of improvements was conducted by their standard contractors.
How is the project being monitored? What procedures have been put in place? What outcomes have been measured? How being monitored: The works were delivered in a period of 3 months based on a detailed programme. Outputs were square metres of road resurfaced, number of new lamp columns etc. which are clear and easy to monitor. Monthly spend reports were presented to the Capital Programme Group and Works Programme meeting (LBL).
Procedures put in place: The cost of works was based on pre-arranged contracts within which there was an agreed charge to the contractors if works were not completed on time. Project Managers from both the NDC and LBL made regular site visits. All works were measured and paid for against schedules of rates. The works were inspected and when complete the Council issued certificates.
Outcomes that have been measured: The project seeks to contribute towards the following NDC Key Outcomes: - ENV 3 – Improve residents perception of the environment - C1 – Increase residents’ trust and confidence in their area - C3 – Reduce the number of robberies in New Cross Gate - EM5 – Increase local business outputs
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 4 Page 98 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
The project measures four key outputs which are based on actual improvements: - Road resurfacing (m2) - Footways (m2) - Gullies No. of gullies) - Lighting (No. of new lamp columns) The appraisal document anticipates that the impact of the programme will be assessed during the year 3 evaluation of the NDC programme. In addition the project has sought to gain feedback from community stakeholders.
To what extent are the local and community and/or the private sector involved with this project? (eg. financial, helped run project, etc...)? Community/voluntary involvement The community has been involved in the project through consultations carried out prior to and following the project implementation.
Private sector involvement The private sector is involved as standard contractors of LBL.
How many people are directly employed in the management & administration of project? The project did not directly employ any people.
Number of jobs created Number safeguarded jobs a) Number of jobs that are: Total BME Full time (over 30 hours per week) Part time (under 30 hours per week) Seasonal Temporary Voluntary Total b) Number of jobs broken down by age and gender (if known) Men Women 16-24 years 25-50 years Over 50 Total
What proportion of these jobs would have existed without NDC? ______%
What proportion of these employees were recruited from ?
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 4 Page 99 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
% The NDC target area 10 mile radius of area (excluding target area) Rest of county/region Elsewhere Total 100 Are there any benefits/disadvantages from employing local people? Benefits:
Disadvantages:
How many people were recruited? How many were seconded?
No. From the unemployed (less than 6 months unemployed) From long term unemployed (over 6 months unemployed) From school leavers From other disadvantaged groups (specify) Number seconded
Additionality, Displacement and Sustainability
What do you think would have happened to the project without NDC funding?
1. Project would have been delayed by Number of months 2. Project would have been of lower quality by % lower quality 3. Project would have been on a lower scale by % lower scale (tick) 4. Gone ahead entirely unchanged 5. Project would not have gone ahead at all 9 6. Project would have gone ahead elsewhere outside the NDC area
Reasons for answer: If 1, 2, 3, 4 or 6, how do you think it would have been funded?
If 6, where would it have gone ahead?
Has this project had the effect of causing other similar projects in the target area or wider local area (please tick as appropriate):- NDC area Wider local area To be cancelled/closed down To reduce their scale or quality To lose participants to this project
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 4 Page 100 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
To become less viable No displacement effects 9 9 Not known
If a similar project has been affected and information is readily available, could you please give further details including any known effects on jobs.
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 4 Page 101 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
Once NDC funding has ceased, what is likely to happen to the project? Will it continue, change emphasis/target area, or discontinue?
LBL had identified that the New Cross Gate area would not be a priority for lighting and paving upgrades in the next five years but they have agreed to take on the maintenance of the NDC funded improvements. The first year of maintenance is the responsibility of the contractors who conducted the works.
To what extent does the sustainability of the project rely on mainstream funds (ie how will it be financed)? Has/will it become self-sustaining?
The sustainability of the project relies upon maintenance which LBL have agreed to provide for life.
Achievements, Outputs, Outcomes and Lessons What have been the main achievements of the project to date? What has worked well? The project was completed on time with minimal disruption to residents and with no significant problems. A recent resident satisfaction survey shows very high levels of satisfaction with the completed works and little concern regarding disruption.
What has not worked well?
There were some issues with one of the contractors who were a little behind on the tidying up and snagging works. However, this was dealt with and all works were completed on time.
In your opinion what are? i) The key strengths of the project?
The project was well thought through and delivered almost to the letter of the appraisal document. By using the existing structures in place at LBL the implementation of the project was not a burden on the NDC. It is also evident that a good relationship has developed between LBL and the NDC, LBL will be delivering stage 2 of the lighting and paving strategy which will focus on improvements to the estates in the area.
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 4 Page 102 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
ii) The key weaknesses of the project?
Wider discussions with board members and residents suggests that there was some concern that the project was funding works which should have been delivered by LBL and thus questioning the additionality of the project. However, I have been assured by the staff at LBL and at the NDC that these works would not have been conducted by LBL within the next five years as the roads in the New Cross Gate area have not been prioritised.
What are the longer term outcomes that have been achieved? To what extent do these outcomes match with the original aims and objectives of the project?
Resident satisfaction with the works is very high. A postal survey conducted in May 2003 obtained a 20% response rate (300 returned surveys) - 71% of residents said that the new lights have resulted in a great improvement in the amount of light. - 92% of residents were satisfied or very satisfied with the design of the lamp column. - 88% of residents were satisfied or very satisfied with the location of the lamp columns. - 57% of respondents thought that the new columns had resulted in a great improvement in the overall appearance of their street. - 67% of respondents said that the electricity supply was connected to the new columns quickly. To ensure minimum disruption to residents utilities companies will not be allowed to dig up the streets which have received improvements for at least 1 year from the completion of works.
What are the key lessons to emerge? (include wider influences e.g. partnership working, community involvement etc) What to do: Use existing systems and procedures of the local authority – do not try to “reinvent the wheel”.
What NOT to do:
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 4 Page 103 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
THEME SECTION FOR THE PROJECT
Crime and Safety Who were the main target groups for this project? All local residents 9 Young residents Older residents Offenders/young offenders Victims of crime/specific crime types Other (please specify)
What impact was the project intended to have on crime/community safety in the area? How was that impact to be achieved (mechanism)? How long was it expected before this impact would be felt? Intended impact: Reduce fear of crime through improving the lighting and streetscape as identified by local consultation.
Mechanism to achieve impact: Replacement of existing yellow street lighting with white lighting and improvements to the gullies, paving and roads.
Timescale of impact (short <1 yr, medium 1-2 yrs, long term 2 yrs or over): Works were completed in a 3 month period. However, though maintenance agreements reached with LBL it is anticipated that the improvements made will have lasting impacts on fear of crime and reduction in crime alongside the range of other initiative being implemented by the NDC. Was benefit expected for the main target group(s) identified at Q74 only or for a wider range of residents? (Please tick as appropriate) Benefit intended for target group only Benefit intended for a wider range of residents 9
Please describe the intended wider target group(s): The project has improved the streetscape for those who live, work and visit the New Cross Gate area. Please describe the way in which the project targeted the intended groups? Main target group(s): The project improved the streetscape in the NDC area. Wider target group(s): The project has improved the streetscape for those who live, work and visit the New Cross Gate area.
How successful has the project been in engaging the main targeted group(s)? (Please tick as appropriate) Very good 9 Good Average Poor
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 4 Page 104 New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Partnership
What outputs have been achieved? E.g. number of young people attending sessions, houses target hardened, ASBOs served, Neighbourhood Wardens in post? Please include separate outputs for black & minority ethnic groups Description of Outputs Total BME Roads resurface (m2) 20,380 Footways (m2) 5,470 Gullies (No of gullies) 1,500 Lighting (No. of new lamp columns) 192 Has there been any evidence of changes in crime/community safety outcomes? (Circle ALL that apply) Reduction in crime, specific types of crime Yes/No Reduction in disorder or specific kinds of disorder Yes/No Increased crime reporting Yes/No Offending behaviour changes in target group Yes/No Improved relations with police Yes/No Improved perceptions of community safety Yes/No Improved crime prevention for individuals (inc cars and homes) Yes/No Improved crime prevention for areas Yes/No Reduced fear of crime Yes/No
Other (please specify) There has not been any evidenced improvement of crime/community safety outcomes to date. The impact will be assessed as part of the overall programme evaluation.
Has there been any evidence of other benefits? (Circle ALL that apply) Increased community involvement Yes/No Increased levels of educational qualification Yes/No Increased school attendance/decreased truancy Yes/No Increased levels of employment Yes/No
Other (please specify) Improvement of the streetscape in the NDC area.
Can any of these changes be attributed to the project? Are there other factors which should be taken into account e.g. other NDC projects, projects in the area independent of NDC projects operating in the wider area Changes attributed to this project: The improved look of streets in the area is visible and the resident survey conducted in May 2003 finds that resident are clearly satisfied that the lighting and streetscape is improved. 83 What proportion of the residents benefiting from the project could have? Benefited from a similar project elsewhere in NDC area Benefited from a similar project courses outside NDC area Benefited from a less suitable project in local area or outside Not benefited at all from a similar project elsewhere 100%
NDC Evaluation: Annual Evaluation Report for 2003: Annexe 4 Page 105